| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 10:22:33 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by crayon:
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 |
Welfare.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:36:30 AM · #77 |
I think they do a great job on the rant forum considering - perfect no but generally more than fair yes.
Maybe having a plain blue icon - at least on the rant forum - unless they were acting in the offical capicity but I doubt that is really that workable. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:36:50 AM · #78 |
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. |
Not so. Isaac Newton has 3 laws of motion named after him.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
2. F=m*a
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
He also has Newton's Law of Gravitation, Newton's Law of Fluids and Newton's Law of Cooling
There may be more that I am not aware of.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:45:51 AM · #79 |
ok, dont know if this is been brought up, but here is a suggestion.
Create a NEW rant forum, where you have to register seperately for it to view it or participate in it.
Must be 17 years old (or 18) to register for this forum to view it or participate in it.
No moderation, this would be like a WWE cage match no holds barred.
But the SC/Moderators web site owners will retain the right to block, delete or lock threads if physical violence and or racial threats are made.
this way people can have a general rant forum for your typical rant and then a "special" rant form for those who find it necessary to go over the top.
James |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:47:00 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by jab119:
ok, dont know if this is been brought up, but here is a suggestion.
Create a NEW rant forum, where you have to register seperately for it to view it or participate in it.
Must be 17 years old (or 18) to register for this forum to view it or participate in it.
No moderation, this would be like a WWE cage match no holds barred.
But the SC/Moderators web site owners will retain the right to block, delete or lock threads if physical violence and or racial threats are made.
this way people can have a general rant forum for your typical rant and then a "special" rant form for those who find it necessary to go over the top.
James |
There are literally 10,000 boards like this around the internet. Why do this here?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:31:40 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
Not so. Isaac Newton has 3 laws of motion named after him.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
2. F=m*a
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
He also has Newton's Law of Gravitation, Newton's Law of Fluids and Newton's Law of Cooling
There may be more that I am not aware of. |
Newton's Law of Figs
;)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:40:57 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
Not so. Isaac Newton has 3 laws of motion named after him.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
2. F=m*a
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
He also has Newton's Law of Gravitation, Newton's Law of Fluids and Newton's Law of Cooling
There may be more that I am not aware of. |
Such a damn legalist he was....!!! |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:17:09 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
There are literally 10,000 boards like this around the internet. Why do this here? |
well people are griping about SC members in the rant forum here and want it un moderated. so either point htem elsewhere or give em a place here to duke it out
James |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:30:16 PM · #84 |
The thread, like all threads, have a way to branch as jabs are followed and the premise gets buried.
I am sorry to bore but much of what I meant is based on the element of "fair play"
First, it is understood, that the owners always have the last word. I play only by the rules and I do not break them. Like I said, if I ever get an image DQ...I will simply leave DPC. I apply the same "fair play" principle to myself. The site prohibits certain things and I never contemplate using them.
Second, I understand that the S/C give freely of their time for no renumeration. They are admirable folks.
Third, I do not resent the business aspect. I am a business man myself. I do appreciate and do not even know how a place like this functions with such reasonable fees. If it weren't for DPCprints the load would be unbearable.
I was so moved by the goodwill of the owners and the S/C that sometime ago I sent Langdon an email advising that I was willing to sponsor some challenges with prizes of 100, 75 and 50. I said I would do this to help increase paid membership: Just for members. This would provide a direct incentive for registered members to join. Other cash challenges would require entrants who have made twice the amount of comments than those received. My object here is to champion the badly needed comment. I never received a reply either because my idea is too convoluted or because they handle a high amount of mail and mine was lost. I love the site so much that if offered a partnership I would gladly accepted it as I am well able to pay the price.
I say the above not to toot my horn, but along with other obligations I fulfill, I have the welfare of the site first. Such love and such involvement shapes my vision for DPC. But I am only one paid member and only a voice crying in the dark. I do not expect to be heard. I see certain things that can be done better but all organizations cement into a bureaucracy and change becomes painful. Like I posted elswhere, I was asked by several S/C to throw my hat in the ring for consideration. Please, do not assume that I hold a grudge for not being selected. As a matter of fact with my idea of fair play, it would mean that I would have to lay off the Rant Forum if so selected.
But then, rest assured, that they do not want me because I would seek to affectuate change. This means, entering the S/C and pay my dues as an obedient server until I establish my reputation. There are S/C members and then there is the head S/C. This is the only way that places maintain order. Then my job was to open and express my ideas for DPC from the viewpoint of a photographer and the viewpoint of a member and then to exercise the sense of fair play to balance the needs and obligation of company and members.
I gave up this dream and I will never apply again. I realize my type is not wanted because I fight hard for what I believe is right. Besides why invite somebosy who may want to rock the boat.
Now, about why I think the S/C should monitor but not participate in the Rant Forum: Once again from the top:
The Rant Forum is fun because the art of debate is like a sport. But like in sports you have victors, losers and often some minor casualty. Sides dig in deep and then there is also alienation. Not only that, each participant reveal their character, their upbringing, manners, their philisophy and their ability to formulate and voice their opinions. However, ideas crash and fire works erupt. This is the nature of the beast.
So, while, there are good reasons to moderate the forum for specific purposes, the stream of consciousness should be left alone provided that personal attacks be curved. There is always the fear about the slippery slope. Allow me to define it. A slippery slope is a movement towards imminent danger. It runs on its own volition. Yet, the slippery slope is only a logical ploy used to curtail and block certain line of thought. It uses fear. It is also not wise to dictate the type of jargon to be employed provided there is no foul language.
Being such a controversial place I just do not think it is advisable for those that monitor to be active partipants. To me, it is only a matter of fair play. I read and write in lightning speed and I can see images as fast. I have gone through many forums but under no circumstance am I going to enumerate speficic cases.
I approach the problem from a little higher up but I feel there is a problem.
With this I close my case.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 12:34:36. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:46:46 PM · #85 |
I've seen various people cry foul over a locked thread where an SC member was participating or claim that SC members are defending their own or abusing their powers. LOL! What actually goes on behind the scenes is about as far removed from a sinister conspiracy as you can get. As others have pointed out, if an SC member gets into a heated exchange and the thread suddenly gets locked, it wasn't that SC member who locked it. We simply don't lock threads where we have a conflict of interest. Sometimes we'll report the post (the same way everyone else does), but usually it's just another SC member who happened to spot trouble and took independent action without regard to the participants.
Rants are generally free rein, but the participants still have to be civil. You can express whatever opinion you like as long as you don't violate the site ToS.
The SC is a diverse group of people with equally diverse opinions, and our duty is to the site, not each other. We don't get special treatment (other than abuse in the forums). DQ votes aren't always unanimous, and if someone is a little too quick to lock a thread or hide a post, the others jump all over him (or her). SC members get disqualified, too, but it doesn't happen very often since familiarity with the rules is part of the job requirements. We don't participate in the discussion or voting on our own photos (although we do get to watch). Actually, if you pull back the curtain, you'll see that perception is far different from reality. A few quotes from recent SC threads:
Originally posted by frisca:
I think that an edit of the post would have been more appropriate than a wholesale hiding of the whole thing. He had other things to say and I always feel our first line of attack is to be as least intrusive as possible. |
Originally posted by mk:
I've edited the post. If you feel that I've edited her unfairly, here is the text of her post, feel free to replace it. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
IMO, we SHOULD be taking a mostly-hands-off approach in RANT; the only thing we should be addressing is ToS violations. |
Originally posted by karmat:
karmat issues regulation standard dpc sc flame suits and explains proper dressing technique... or will it just be the regular 'site-council-is-really-nazi-union-in-disguise' group?" |
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:54:51 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, we SHOULD be taking a mostly-hands-off approach in RANT; the only thing we should be addressing is ToS violations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is all I am asking for but read the responses from muckpod.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:58:31 PM · #87 |
What if SC members could temporarily drop their SC "hats" and join in rants as DPC members - mere mortals like the rest of us.
Policing/locking/hiding etc would be left up to other SC members who are not involved in the discussion.
As a temporary mortal, said SC member would then not pose any threat and still be able to discuss something near and dear to her/his heart. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:58:59 PM · #88 |
i didn't get my flame suit. :(
and we DO take a hands-off approach in rant, other than participating like any other member.
why shouldn't we get to play too? next you guys will say we can't submit to challenges 'cause that's not fair. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:00:19 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Policing/locking/hiding etc would be left up to other SC members who are not involved in the discussion. |
that IS what happens now. no one would last on the SC very long if they weren't able to self-police themselves. just because you guys don't think it happens doesn't mean that it doesn't.
beetle: i'm not picking on you. i just used your quote. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:03:38 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This means, entering the S/C and pay my dues as an obedient server until I establish my reputation. There are S/C members and then there is the head S/C. |
Another misconception. IMO all SC members are pretty much equal in terms of respect and how much weight their opinions carry (after all, if you were respected enough to be nominated...). From day one I have never felt that my opinions were subordinate to anyone else's, nor have I ever seen one SC member disregard another because "it's just so-and-so." I have seen unanimous entry votes on the verge of DQ or validation turn around and go the opposite direction based on a single person's findings (and everyone else realizing we were wrong or missed something). It's about as fair and level a playing field as you can possibly imagine.
As for SC not participating in Rants... hey, we have opinions, too. When we participate, though, we leave our SC superpowers at the door- it's strictly Muck Wayne and Kirbic Kent. Any forum policing falls on the shoulders of those SC above the fray. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:07:12 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This means, entering the S/C and pay my dues as an obedient server until I establish my reputation. There are S/C members and then there is the head S/C. |
I disagree with this - who's head SC? The ones vocal in the forum? CJ and GeneralE? What about TimJ? He's been here forever. What about heida and her 20 ribbons? What about kirbic? Wasn't he in the last group to be up there? He's as respected as SC gets by EVERYONE. I respectfully have to disagree about this idea. I think you get respect as SC by being someone worthy of respect.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:08:27 PM · #92 |
Yeah yeah...sure Scalvert. You may wear that little jester hat of your's but we all know you're really a "DPC Prince" (or was that "DPC Prints")
*confuses himself...storms off...and returns to eating his orange peel* |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:15:11 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
What about TimJ? He's been here forever. What about heida and her 20 ribbons? |
Actually, TimJ rarely participates. He volunteered to retire, but we like to drag him out of the broom closet sometimes for puppet shows. Heida and Magnetic are no longer on the SC (see for yourself) as their schedules didn't allow them to be active.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 13:15:55. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:16:01 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This means, entering the S/C and pay my dues as an obedient server until I establish my reputation. There are S/C members and then there is the head S/C. |
Another misconception. IMO all SC members are pretty much equal in terms of respect and how much weight their opinions carry (after all, if you were respected enough to be nominated...). From day one I have never felt that my opinions were subordinate to anyone else's, nor have I ever seen one SC member disregard another because "it's just so-and-so." I have seen unanimous entry votes on the verge of DQ or validation turn around and go the opposite direction based on a single person's findings (and everyone else realizing we were wrong or missed something). It's about as fair and level a playing field as you can possibly imagine.
As for SC not participating in Rants... hey, we have opinions, too. When we participate, though, we leave our SC superpowers at the door- it's strictly Muck Wayne and Kirbic Kent. Any forum policing falls on the shoulders of those SC above the fray. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sorry but someone is in charge as no organization runs with all equal heads. This creates havoc in the long run. To say that you are all equal is to admit a serious problem because you can all talk from different sides of your mouth. There are duties that eventually gravitate to the administrators and these can not all transmitted by each member. There are specific task and someone to keep the place together. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:21:37 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...no organization runs with all equal heads. |
We're like a volleyball team- interchangeable and rotating. Everyone assumes the same roles, as needed.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There are duties that eventually gravitate to the administrators and these can not all transmitted by each member. |
Fortunately those duties are few, because that's EXACTLY what happens. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 13:22:52. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:24:22 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... no one would last on the SC very long if they weren't able to self-police themselves. just because you guys don't think it happens doesn't mean that it doesn't.
|
Yes, I'm sure you do that, but the effect is very subtle.
Personally, I think it would make more sense if there were clear outward signs (e.g. a different icon next to the name) that person X is currently involved in a controversial discussion purely as mortal DPC member X rather than as SC - puts a whole different "feel" and atmosphere to the conversation. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:25:02 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This means, entering the S/C and pay my dues as an obedient server until I establish my reputation. There are S/C members and then there is the head S/C. |
I disagree with this - who's head SC? The ones vocal in the forum? CJ and GeneralE? What about TimJ? He's been here forever. What about heida and her 20 ribbons? What about kirbic? Wasn't he in the last group to be up there? He's as respected as SC gets by EVERYONE. I respectfully have to disagree about this idea. I think you get respect as SC by being someone worthy of respect. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With all due respect you misread my post. When I say respect earned and reputation I mean after showing that one can balance and execute fair play between members and the site. Strictly a judgement issue. I am not a megamaniac but then there should be diplomacy used. No need to crush the miscreants to smitherings. Yes, I know the heat the s/c takes, but then that is part of the job description. The s/c are more like customer service. You are dealing with members and a lot of self control is required. No need to have a s/c enter open battle with a member. It is always a delicate matter. You are dealing with many frustrations and also with some unbalanced souls that do not know the art of expressing ideas. You can choose to ban them by provoking them further or you can deal with them diffrently. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:25:35 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I gave up this dream and I will never apply again. I realize my type is not wanted because I fight hard for what I believe is right. Besides why invite somebosy who may want to rock the boat.
|
Dan, that's just plain silly. You're not wanted because you fight hard for what you believe is right? I think many of us do that, in many ways, in SC and elsewhere. I know I do, very much so, and as far as I can tell so do pretty much all the other SC members. They have strong, solid views, and fight hard for them. That doesn't make you unwanted.
About your original post, that the Rant forum should be unmoderated, I agree. I also think it should be kept civil. Remember though that (even) SC members make mistakes, or do thinks a bit too hastily - it's the way things are, and sometimes a person reacts, especially when repeatedly provoked, and it isn't all bad.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:49:07 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I gave up this dream and I will never apply again. I realize my type is not wanted because I fight hard for what I believe is right. Besides why invite somebosy who may want to rock the boat.
|
Dan, that's just plain silly. You're not wanted because you fight hard for what you believe is right? I think many of us do that, in many ways, in SC and elsewhere. I know I do, very much so, and as far as I can tell so do pretty much all the other SC members. They have strong, solid views, and fight hard for them. That doesn't make you unwanted.
About your original post, that the Rant forum should be unmoderated, I agree. I also think it should be kept civil. Remember though that (even) SC members make mistakes, or do thinks a bit too hastily - it's the way things are, and sometimes a person reacts, especially when repeatedly provoked, and it isn't all bad. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are a sweetheart. But consider the following: first I am led to believe that the S/C has no head figure. While each active member performs functions that are interchangable there is someone that receives the new members and spell out the rules of play and then report to the Administrators. Since the S/C vote in new members then the place has a tendency to hand pick what they feel will advance the cause according to their views. Look outside at the members and we can see at once that some do not have the temperement while others are too controversial. I know where I fit and I do not kid myself. Nor do I feel "unwanted" as a personal strife. What I mean is that people who rock the boat are avoided. This is okay. You have s/c members who are terrific diplomats and some who are just plain brilliant. You also have some top notch talent amongst you. I am sure that you all have ideas but ideas are relegated a tad to the side to attend to performing the laundry list of chores. People outside see only the final outcome and some think of making it better. Who knows, once you join, you see the politics and opinions and ideas get pushed back.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:54:58 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
You are a sweetheart. But consider the following: first I am led to believe that the S/C has no head figure. While each active member performs functions that are interchangable there is someone that receives the new members and spell out the rules of play and then report to the Administrators. Since the S/C vote in new members then the place has a tendency to hand pick what they feel will advance the cause according to their views. |
Receives the new members? Reports what to the administrators? I don't feel like you have a very clear idea of how the SC works. |
|
