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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Where is Ubique?!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 272, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/14/2012 02:39:12 AM · #176
Originally posted by ambaker:
We, the "members" pay $25 a year. We deserve better than this.

You deserve better than to have a site moderator ask you to follow the posted rules?

You seem to be under the impression that SC members get something more than free site access and a little more Portfolio space than the standard member account ... oh, and the occasional headache ...

06/14/2012 03:19:42 AM · #177
Paul (GeneralE Paul), yes. The paying membership deserve better, regardless of the volunteer status of the SC. As I've said multiple times, it's not about the members of the SC on a personal level, but the SC as a unit. There is no readily apparent structure or guidelines on how to intervene consistently regardless of the forum rules posted by Neil earlier. However, there are opinions from multiple SC members in this thread that reinforce the apparent disagreement in how this should/could have been handled. It needs improvement. Without discussion it can't improve.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frisca:
if we thought that something more than an edit or verbal warning about leaving inappropriate comments was warranted, we'd would canvas options with other SC members and come up with an appropriate response.

I note that nothing from the 4 current and 1 former SC members responding to these threads (nor several others behind the scenes) suggests that more council opinions would have led to a different course of action. Whether or not we personally felt the comment was out of line or against the rules, it is not unreasonable to see how it might be taken as a personal jab referring to past history even if that was not the intent. That someone would be offended by being asked to edit a comment is a new wrinkle.


I'll quote myself from an earlier post:

Originally posted by bspurgeon:
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.


And another:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I've seen the message from SC and it said to edit the comment or it would be deleted. Unless someone else is lying to me, then SC is misrepresenting the tone of their message... and I think that's the issue here. Tone. If you're really in the business of social facilitation, and not censorship, then you should work on your tone.


06/14/2012 03:21:54 AM · #178
This issue is a dead fish for me, so I'm off fishing. A wiser head suggested that the solution is to do what Flikr does and give the photographer the option to delete comments, self deceit probably fits better. Anyway since the truth has been muted, my parting shot may be a beam of light to all those blinking eyes out there in the dark. The bold type is my emphasis.

> On 08/06/2012, at 15:10, DPChallenge Site Council
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Your comment on Margaret's photo was reported by the photographer, and I have
>> to agree as worded it's a softly worded personal attack.
>>
>> 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. We will remove personal attacks.
>>
>> Please edit your comment...or we will remove it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> SC
>> ----- Original Message (DPC:23684) -----
06/14/2012 03:57:06 AM · #179
Originally posted by daisydavid:
This issue is a dead fish for me, so I'm off fishing.


I know someone who has some excellent bait, with it I'm sure you'll catch some really splendid fish, afterwards we'll all go around congratulating the hook for the work, although admittedly it does take both.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 04:07:40.
 06/14/2012 05:55:15 AM · #180
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
This thread should have been locked long ago... SC is being very generous over this kerfuffle IMO.

I don't think I could agree less. A popular member left because he felt he was unduly treated. Regardless of whether he was or not we have a right to discuss it. Us who might agree and disagree with him. And I think the bit of transparency the sc has shown us is really a great thingthey have done. Giving us their policies is a good thing. Hopefully it will mean this whole thing won't happen again.

Closing the thread would really be feeding the censorship flame that folk were concerned about before. I would suggest that you simply ignore the thread if if isn't to your taste. I think that while it is not nice... it is probably a healthy thread for the community to have allowed go on*. I really think closing the thread is about the worst thing that could happen.

* haven't read it since about 12 hours ago, so this doesn't speak for the more recent direction of the thread.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 05:56:24.
 06/14/2012 06:38:26 AM · #181
06/14/2012 07:15:45 AM · #182
Penny Wharvey McGill: I've spoken my peace and counted to three.
Ulysses Everett McGill: She's counted to three. G--d---t! She's counted to three. Sonofab!+ch!
 06/14/2012 07:33:26 AM · #183
Originally posted by Skip:
Penny Wharvey McGill: I've spoken my peace and counted to three.
Ulysses Everett McGill: She's counted to three. G--d---t! She's counted to three. Sonofab!+ch!

Well he ain't bona fide :-)
 06/14/2012 07:34:56 AM · #184
Originally posted by daisydavid:
>> Your comment on Margaret's photo was reported by the photographer, and I have
>> to agree as worded it's a softly worded personal attack.
>>
>> 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. We will remove personal attacks.
>>
>> Please edit your comment... or we will remove it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> SC

Two things immediately strike me about this. The first is that the message was signed SC when, as we now know, it was an individual SC member. Maybe that's not a problem. But changing from I (first paragraph) to SC (sign off) seems a little discontinuous to me.

But the personalisation of the report (highlighted above) is wrong. Just wrong. Why is the process structured as discussed earlier in the thread individualised? The SC should have a canned response for something these situations. Something like this maybe:

Originally posted by ...:
Dear ubique,

A report has been filed about a comment you made on the following image:


The concerns raised by the reporter are:
[the complaint]

Your comment:

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.


We invite you to discuss this matter with us before we proceed further.

Hugs 'n' kisses,

SC


If what daisydavid quoted was indeed the message, there was no invitation for discussion. And without an invitation I can't see how someone can see it is up for discussion. It reads like an ultimatum to me. That is worrisome especially when a SC member has said that the leaving party chose to refuse discussion.

Originally posted by scalvart (page 8sih):
[...]but if the other party chooses to walk out rather than make any attempt at polite resolution or discussion, then that's his right

People respond in kind to the timbre of the situations they are facing. You can't say he should have been polite when the message to him was not polite.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 07:57:26.
 06/14/2012 07:41:46 AM · #185
A man of constant sorrow
 06/14/2012 08:42:44 AM · #186
nm

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 08:48:28.
 06/14/2012 11:39:12 AM · #187
::Squeak of Shock::

I woke up this morning and you all are still HERE!

Although this thread is supposed to be about the BEST OF PAUL MARTIN while waiting to welcome him back from his sojourn, please feel free to continue and pimp your own thoughts and agendas in this thread.

However, I invite you to take a moment and enjoy another of Paul's images appropriately titled "Soliloquy":



*wanders off to buy more cheeze wiz and crackers*
 06/14/2012 11:47:29 AM · #188
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Although this thread is supposed to be about the BEST OF PAUL MARTIN while waiting to welcome him back from his sojourn, please feel free to continue and pimp your own thoughts and agendas in this thread.

I thought that's what the other thread was for, and that this one was for trashing the SC for requesting that people follow the rules.

@ NiallOTuama: is it really necessary to "issue an invitation" to discuss something? I think it's quite reasonable to expect someone to take the initiative to respond when they get a message with which they disagree -- it certainly didn't require an invitation for any of the participants in this thread to say "Hey, something doesn't seem right!" ...
 06/14/2012 11:55:46 AM · #189


Message edited by author 2012-06-14 12:27:15.
 06/14/2012 11:58:02 AM · #190
06/14/2012 12:35:07 PM · #191
The strength of a bambu lies in its flexibility, if rules are as rigid and cold as icicles, snap they must.

06/14/2012 12:51:01 PM · #192
Originally posted by jagar:
The strength of a bambu lies in its flexibility, if rules are as rigid and cold as icicles, snap they must.

Rules could be more flexible. People could be more flexible.

06/14/2012 01:03:07 PM · #193
I feel I have been oblivious to Ubique's unique style. This thread has changed the way I look at photographs.



Message edited by author 2012-06-14 13:03:20.
 06/14/2012 01:03:26 PM · #194
I know many of you are upset at MargaretN, not only for her part in this situation and her subsequent unkind and inaccurate comments, but other unpopular things she has said in the past. That should never be a reason to call her or anyone else out, especially repeatedly. We've dealt with the "gloating" post, and welcome any further rules violation comments to be reported.

The court of public opinion does not abide by any rules of evidence or procedure, but that doesn't mean the actions of the moderators of this forum must follow the same chaotic receipe.
 06/14/2012 01:10:20 PM · #195
06/14/2012 01:13:14 PM · #196
Spirits
 06/14/2012 01:24:24 PM · #197
[quote=frisca] I know many of you are upset at MargaretN, not only for her part in this situation and her subsequent unkind and inaccurate comments, but other unpopular things she has said in the past. That should never be a reason to call her or anyone else out, especially repeatedly. We've dealt with the "gloating" post, and welcome any further rules violation comments to be reported.

I'm all for backing off and never resolving the obvious problem, let's just let it run and pretend nothing's wrong, maybe time will heal or maybe shit will fly, who knows, i officially back off.


06/14/2012 01:24:51 PM · #198
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
Mob justice is never Justice.
Accept that a petition was sent from a member to the authoritative group to investigate, they contacted the second party and based on adhering to the SoC rules asked for an edit to or removal of a comment this individual made. Rather than listen to the rules, this person left in a bit of a huff, what many would refer to as a temper tantrum if the age of the person was younger.
What resulted was a mob out for blood because other people followed the rules and didn't bend them around one individual.
As for any rebuttal of Margarets, it was removed from the site by someone as well, yet she dis not quit in outrage or rise to the frenzied catcalls from a mob out for her blood.
Admit that if this was about 95% of the other members of this site, use myself and cosmicassassin as examples, Nobody would make this big of a fuss, and many of you would be happy the SC dis their job and got rid of one of us.
If you are going to make statements as have been made here, consider if you would justify this behaviour over someone else before you claim the sc isn't doing their job, because I guarantee you that a large % of readers will admit its more about a perceived slight that made someone Known leave (his choice, not the sc's) and less about the rules.
If you expect fair treatment it has to be unbiased. Bending rules for one person creates a tiered system, that will do more harm than one man rage quitting over a rule enforcement.


Yep, dat true.
 06/14/2012 01:27:15 PM · #199
Originally posted by frisca:

The court of public opinion does not abide by any rules of evidence or procedure, but that doesn't mean the actions of the moderators of this forum must follow the same chaotic receipe.


Yes, but, there are no apparent rules in how our moderators respond to reported posts. That is indeed a recipe for chaos.

eta: guidelines may be a better word than rules

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 13:28:29.
 06/14/2012 01:34:36 PM · #200
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by frisca:

The court of public opinion does not abide by any rules of evidence or procedure, but that doesn't mean the actions of the moderators of this forum must follow the same chaotic receipe.


Yes, but, there are no apparent rules in how our moderators respond to reported posts. That is indeed a recipe for chaos.

eta: guidelines may be a better word than rules


well said (says she who is still hoping for a solution to ensure this won't happen again).
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:54:57 PM

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: 04/23/2024 09:54:57 PM EDT.