| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 02:11:51 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Like I said, there is nothing anything can say that will offend me. |
That sounds like some sort of challenge. ;-P <<-- **sticking tongue out and winking while chuckling villainously** |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Funny but I have seen so many jabs derail the winner of the argument by responding in kind. My belief is say what you will and I will treat it either as worthy of a response or not. Consider, if we are deep into a debate and I see you are getting the best, I will jab you once. How you treat the jab will speak with what authority you proceed in your thinking. If you take the gambit and allow your emotions to rule then I have deposed of your point and now we are talking about something else. Follow threads and look how often this happens. lol |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:48:35 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
the rant forum is a privilege, not a right. and i see no logical reason why the SC should not be reviewing the content within it.
|
Ok I'm a little confused here why is it a privilege ? I thought as paid members any forum would be our right to participate in.
Can you let us all know which part of the site is a privilege and which part is our right as paid members ? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:52:57 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
The SC are volunteers. Yes they are hand chosen, but they are still volunteers. They are not paid lackies of D/L. They have their own opinions and belief structures. They are simply members who have chosen to go above and beyond to maintain the high standards of this site. If they were paid by D/L to police the site I would consider this to be an issue. However as things stand I do not understand why we are even discussing this issue. This comes from a member who does not wish to view the rant section. |
With great powers comes great responsibilities. I guess its like, when you're a law enforcement officer, you are expected to act above your personal interest of beliefs - to uphold the responsibility entrusted to you.
I think somewhere above someone said "you can rant all you want in YOUR forum/website", isnt this like saying, "I'm George Bush, you wanna complaint, you can go complaint in your own country?" LOL |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:57:56 AM · #54 |
Hmmm, I've been waiting for "Godwin's Second Law" to show up.
Ok class, can anyone guess what that might be? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:00:30 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hmmm, I've been waiting for "Godwin's Second Law" to show up.
Ok class, can anyone guess what that might be? |
Oh you're a Nazi! So, discussion is OVER. :p
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 03:00:54. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:02:28 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hmmm, I've been waiting for "Godwin's Second Law" to show up.
Ok class, can anyone guess what that might be? |
An adage in Internet culture that states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:07:34 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hmmm, I've been waiting for "Godwin's Second Law" to show up.
Ok class, can anyone guess what that might be? |
Not matter how clever or witty you are, you can only have one law named after you. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:08:12 AM · #58 |
No, no, no - the second law...
Godwin's Second Law:
As an online discussion (or any discussion for that matter) progresses, the chances that a liberal will find or create an opportunity to bash George W. Bush approaches 1, regardless of the content or context of the discussion.
Example:
"Hi Joe. Crappy weather, today, huh?"
Joe: "Yup, Bush lied and told me it was going to be a nice day."
or in a DPC forum example:
"Your photo is nice, but there seems to be a dark shadow cast on the subject"
Response: "Yeah, the shadow was caused by GW trying to dominate the planet." |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:08:22 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hmmm, I've been waiting for "Godwin's Second Law" to show up.
Ok class, can anyone guess what that might be? |
Not matter how clever or witty you are, you can only have one law named after you. |
LOL.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:14:31 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
No, no, no - the second law...
Godwin's Second Law:
As an online discussion (or any discussion for that matter) progresses, the chances that a liberal will find or create an opportunity to bash George W. Bush approaches 1, regardless of the content or context of the discussion.
... |
We should have seen that coming. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:19:09 AM · #61 |
all your base are belong to me
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 03:23:37. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:28:05 AM · #62 |
| No right is an absolute and freedom even less so, every thing should be my choice but almost everything's imposed on me. truth is you will be watched from birth to doomsday and then again. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 03:38:40 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by gibun:
No right is an absolute and freedom even less so, every thing should be my choice but almost everything's imposed on me. truth is you will be watched from birth to doomsday and then again. |
even while I was pooing in the loo? oh shame! :p |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 04:31:10 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this site is a business, so it's important to monitor the forums so that they don't violate the rules established by the admins. we don't want to jeopardize their business interests. |
I wondered why it wasn't as muich fun anymore. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 04:41:58 AM · #65 |
Godwin's Third Law:
As a discussion about an online discussion (or any discussion for that matter) progresses, the chances that an anti-liberal will find or create an opportunity to quote 'Godwin's Second Law' approaches 1, regardless of the content or context of the discussion.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
No, no, no - the second law...
Godwin's Second Law:
As an online discussion (or any discussion for that matter) progresses, the chances that a liberal will find or create an opportunity to bash George W. Bush approaches 1, regardless of the content or context of the discussion.
Example:
"Hi Joe. Crappy weather, today, huh?"
Joe: "Yup, Bush lied and told me it was going to be a nice day."
or in a DPC forum example:
"Your photo is nice, but there seems to be a dark shadow cast on the subject"
Response: "Yeah, the shadow was caused by GW trying to dominate the planet." |
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 04:44:00 AM · #66 |
Just for once, wouldn't it be nice if there was something fun and fulfilling to participate in which didn't eventually become considered a machine for making money.
e |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 04:48:37 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by e301:
Just for once, wouldn't it be nice if there was something fun and fulfilling to participate in which didn't eventually become considered a machine for making money. |
making babies? :p |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:08:53 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by e301:
Just for once, wouldn't it be nice if there was something fun and fulfilling to participate in which didn't eventually become considered a machine for making money.
e |
I'm sure if we could find a benefactor who would be willing to pay for the server costs and the thousands of dollars in monthly bandwidth expenses, not to mention for the ever-increasing amount of time that Drew and Langdon need to put into maintaining and improving the site, we wouldn't have to worry about such things as revenue. Until then, we need to pay attention to that.
Fortunately for you and everyone else, we've found the best way to make money is to provide a positive experience for the community as a whole, and that's where our focus is. What is the best thing to do for the community is almost always the best business decision as well.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:27:34 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the rant forum is a privilege, not a right. and i see no logical reason why the SC should not be reviewing the content within it.
|
Ok I'm a little confused here why is it a privilege ? I thought as paid members any forum would be our right to participate in.
Can you let us all know which part of the site is a privilege and which part is our right as paid members ? |
I'm still very interested to find out where the privilege area of this site is ? and why it is a privilege to go to that area that I have paid for ???
edit : can't spell for shit
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 07:29:42. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:27:51 AM · #70 |
The website must be policed for all kinds of sensible dull reasons. Members do not have "rights" just because they joined the club. They joined a club with a policed rant forum.
If a thread gets locked, do what people do anyway, and start a thread saying "[locked thread] II", and another "Why did my thread get locked?" and then finally "Why are my threads disappearing" constantly until the popcorn runs out.
While I am all for debate, and don't mind being called names or rudeness directed towards me (it happens quite a bit), I recognise that some people do take offence: personally, I do not call people names and try not to be rude, and I expect the SC to act where offence is taken in circumstances reasonably likely to cause offence.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:32:23 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum? |
I do. SC has blocked/edited or deleted one or more of my threads including a thread about blocking/deleting or editing people's comments including those in the "rant" section. Is this something you really want to rehash???
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:48:20 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum? |
I do. SC has blocked/edited or deleted one or more of my threads including a thread about blocking/deleting or editing people's comments including those in the "rant" section. Is this something you really want to rehash??? |
Hey you should have known it is a "privilege" to post in the rant forum so therefore SC can do what they want with your post. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:58:18 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum? |
I do. SC has blocked/edited or deleted one or more of my threads including a thread about blocking/deleting or editing people's comments including those in the "rant" section. Is this something you really want to rehash??? |
Hey you should have known it is a "privilege" to post in the rant forum so therefore SC can do what they want with your post. |
I'm waiting for the differences between "privilage" and "rights".
I originally joined this site to support a site which I enjoyed. and didn't use any member features. As it stand I haven't entered a challenge for a long time because of someone not liking my comment on their challenge and because S/C has pissed me off time after time with locking threads that in my opinoin shouldn't have been locked (including the ones in the rant section).
I would like muckpond to answer my original question even if its in a PM.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:44:53 AM · #74 |
My take on Rant is that as long as individuals are showing respect for each other then there is no need for moderation.
However, time and time again the posts degenerate into insults and disrespect so moderation in that regard is needed. Sure, in the heat of debate with a passion for whichever side of the debate the poster is on things can get out of hand. Most of the time (if not all) the OP is interested in a discusssion not an out and out fight.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:52:08 AM · #75 |
woo. lots to respond to here. let's hope i don't intimidate anybody.
Originally posted by notonline:
I would like muckpond to answer my original question even if its in a PM. |
kevin -- it's been obvious for a long time that you've had a chip on your shoulder about the SC. i don't know what the source of your original frustration is (i honestly don't remember, or know if i was even an sc at the time), but your signature line doesn't inspire much even-handedness. the SCs primary purpose is to moderate the forums. we put in warnings and re-direct conversations most of the time, but there are very valid times where posts are edited or locked or hidden.
we wouldn't have the ability to do those things if there hadn't ever been a need for them.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Many have seen and have been victims of S/C cencorship not because it breaks TOS, but rather because it offends them.
|
i would really like to see an example of this, because trust me. if we REALLY abused our "powers" to this extent, there would be a LOT more threads locked or hidden.
i cruised quickly through the rant posts from the last 4 months. i count 9 threads that have been locked. some were because they were duplicates, but most were because the threads had disintegrated into personal attacks and name calling, both of which are prohibited by the ToS (and, yes, the ToS still applies in the Rant forum). you guys can all go back through and look at locked threads, even if you can't post to them any more. that's an average of about 2 per month.
there are a number of hidden threads too, but those were blatant personal attacks from the get-go and had no business being here.
my point is, if any one of us really were abusing our "special powers" to the point that you guys imply, the other 15 SCs would be ALL over them a lot faster than you can imagine.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
However, once you become a S/C you are vested with a certain authority and this authority even intimidates resposes. Can you not see this. |
i can see why this might be the case, but it's funny to me because i think it's the opposite. i have found, in my 9 months on the SC, that being in an "authority" position makes me way more of a target than one to be feared.
i used to hide the rant forum, but when i got on the SC i decided to unhide it because i knew part of my job was to make sure things don't get out of hand. i still rarely participate in there unless it's something that REALLY gets me fired up, but in my experiences in there i can tell you that i really don't think anyone's been holding back.
the funniest part about all of this is that you guys seem to be singling out generale. he's got opinions (boy howdy), and he and i have tangled some too, but even though he's been an SC for years i don't think he's ever edited or locked a thread. he's waaaaayyy more in the "let 'em say whatever" camp than anyone else. so, of any of the SC to complain about, the fact you've chosen him is really funny to me.
Originally posted by justin_hewlitt:
I'm referring specifically to if a SC's photo was up for validation. |
while this HAS happened, it happens rarely. being on the SC we are all hyper-aware of the rules, so it's not often that one of our images comes up for validation (unless it's a ribbon-winner). that being said, when it DOES happen, the photographer gracefully bows out of the conversation and the debate and vote continue as normal.
Originally posted by keegbow:
and why it is a privilege to go to that area that I have paid for ??? |
the rant forum is available to anyone, even non-paying users.
Originally posted by keegbow:
Ok I'm a little confused here why is it a privilege ? I thought as paid members any forum would be our right to participate in. |
it's a privilege because this is a digital photography site. it's safe to say that 99% of the topics in the rant forum have nothing to do with photography. therefore, because it has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the site, it's NICE of d&l to let us have a place to discuss things that are way way off-topic.
it's worth noting that the rant forum USED to be completely unmoderated. it WAS the wild wild west. but what happened was that people were being attacked and arguments were getting nutso and it was upsetting people to the point that they didn't want to participate in the site at all. that's bad for the site, as it IS a business. so, instead of just wiping out the forum entirely, the option to hide it was built in and the SCs were asked to moderate it. read the description of the rant forum on the forums page. "this forum is now moderated." that indicates that at some point in time it wasn't, and at some point in time the decision was made that it NEEDED to be moderated.
and, going back to this dpc-as-a-business business... cj hit the nail on the head. the paid memberships do little more than keep the site afloat. the hosting charges have to be outrageous. d&l both still work full-time jobs in addition to running dpc. it's not like they are laying back on their piles of money and laughing at the suckers who pay them $25 every year. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 05:06:09 PM EDT.
