|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 03:10:12 AM · #226 |
Whew..that's a lot of readin. Seeing as I am in fact part of the dreaded site council and I'm pretty much being degraded and insulted here, since we aren't individual people, but rather one entity, I thought I'd put in my little measly contribution.
Ben and I were actually nominated to SC by the members. So I would say you did a good job there. (you being 'the members' There was a thread calling for applicants or nominations and Ben and I got a lot of good public reviews in that thread *oh the memories*. From that thread we were asked if we would be interested, and we both agreed.
As to us all being friends, I wanted to tell you all exactly how untrue that is. Here are a few interesting behind the scenes facts.
I just learned that MK has a real name, and it's not MK. I was looking through the members list and saw 'rob' and was like 'who's rob?' OHhhhh...that's muck (nice to meet you Rob) frisca's name is Pam (I read that in her profile).
I never go into chat. I'm rarely ever invited to offline discussions. ONE SC/Admin knows my phone number. Call me sometime. I have only met one SC in person. I don't think that I've ever even had a discussion with justine, tim, alan, blemt, or manic (whatever his name is).
Fact is, I barely know these people. I can remember one had a baby, be darned if I can remember who now. I've known Ben since he was a baby. You should have seen him 3 years ago when his mama signed that waiver.
Come to think of it, I am not insulted by this thread, and I do not take it personally, since it doesn't apply to me at all. I wasn't elected SC by the 'buddy system' and I'm not friends with anyone.
Well, that's all. My useless trivia for the night.
Oh, one more thing, there was a comment in the original post that said "I think we need more members on the site council who are FOR the community and not for THEMSELVES."
I don't know about the rest of the SC, but I'm not getting a darn thing out of this whole SC business. It takes time away from me and my family, I have never taken a vacation day, I don't get paid, I get floods of emails daily to which I try to respond to while cooking dinner, or catching up on the news.
When was the last time I emailed my friend Tracey? Gosh, has it been that long? Maybe if she were a member here, we'd see each other more often.
I get shit from doing this, and 1/2 the time we get shit ON.
I supose it's the other 1/2 of you that keep me going. Thanks to those who love us. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:29:37 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Thanks to those who love us. |
...You're welcome :-) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:36:36 AM · #228 |
Well I have read most of this thread and it seems to be negative toward the site council members. First off let me say everyone has the right to his or her opinion and to speak it in a non-abusive manner. As a member I am going to jump with my views.
I personally have not had a single site council member to wrong me (that I know of) and I can̢۪t say I see where the problem is. I have different views on how the site council should be put in place but after a long debate with myself I feel it to be fair as is.
As far as giving members the right to vote in site council members that is something that D&L would have to debate. After all this is a business and they have high stakes in what goes on here therefore I feel when they consider a new site council member they take everything into consideration, up to and including legalities.
I have a Sam̢۪s Club membership but they don̢۪t ask me to vote in management or even employees. If I have a problem with management I have the right to go up the latter, in DPChallenge that would be D&L.
I own 2776 shares of RadioShack® stock and I do get to vote on the board but DPChallenge is not a public traded company.
So as far as I̢۪m concerned I feel comfortable with the way the Site Council is formed and working. Yes there maybe times that things don̢۪t go our way and we may feel wronged. But when that happens to me I sit back and think on it a while and most of the time I find that situation (what ever it may be) to have been justified by the site council.
Just my 2¢
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:37:29 AM · #229 |
I skimmed after the first 100 or so posts. Since I know this thread cannot die until my opinion has been posted, here it is...
SC are human.
I don't always agree with what they decide, do or how some of them behave, but I appreciate the time and effort and believe they do a decent job.
I know I wouldn't want the job- unless I could use my torch anyway.
I thought about posting a thread but may as well toss it in this bonfire: I have been very busy wih the business and the baby (and the baby's "business" for that matter), but pop in DPC nearly every night to see what's happening (lurking, really). I must say that as much as I would like to take credit that my diminished participation has caused a much-higher-than-normal level of bickering, whining and general discontent, I'm sure it has more to do with the dreariness of winter or something in the water.
Correct me if I am wrong about things being unusually hostile here lately - may be a misperception.
Peace everyone. *slinks back to lurker status*
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 03:38:35. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 04:38:16 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I think you should have to be at least 22 years old to be a member of the site council. Most people under that is just too young and immature in my opinion.
I think there should be a seperate SPAM forum just so people can type up their SPAM.
I think elections for site council members should be held once a year when their term is up...and they should be voted on, and nominated by, ALL paying members. |
thanks... |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 04:44:04 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I think the site council should be completely revamped. I think the members should be voted in by a majority vote from the community that they serve. Any other method of doing it is an outrage as far as I'm concerned!
I think we need more members on the site council who are FOR the community and not for THEMSELVES.
I think there need to be CLEAR AND DEFINED rules and regulations, much clearer and not open for interpretation than the current rulset, for all aspects of this site including, but not limited to disqualifications, what can and cannot be cloned out, and what content is suitable and what content is not for the forums.
I'm tired of seeing people get robbed of ribbons or people not allowed to post their feelings because some members of the site council disagreed with their methods or their posts...especially when it IS ALLOWED for some members, and NOT ALLOWED for others. |
Should not be put in normal forums I dont want to see this kind of stupid comment there is a section for this stuf try "rant" next time |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:09:26 AM · #232 |
| Been a member here for a wee whiles now, do a lot of reading of the forums......some posting, but not that much. Have seen the amazing amount of time, commitment, dedication to the site the SC put in. You guys do a great job. Thankyou! |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:29:15 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Correct me if I am wrong about things being unusually hostile here lately - may be a misperception.
Peace everyone. *slinks back to lurker status* |
I think everyone is in withdrawal for a current installment of the "DPC Enquirer" and Godzilla. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:12:07 AM · #234 |
It's sad that so much of the world is still ageist (and sexist) I am lucky enough to be English. In England age is not really an issue.
I am 24 now, but I started my own business in computer repair and tuition at the age of 17 (and taught people more than 50 years older than me).
I live in Belgium now, and much like America, Belgium is a very ageist Country where your salary and respect is based mainly on how old you are, not how much experience or knowledge you have.
My personal view is that all paying members should have the chance to vote members into the site council, based on the qualities they have and their activity on dpc, not how old they are. But in reality this site is owned by 2 people, and therefore the structure of the site is entirely up to them, and not for members to be arguing about.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 06:12:46. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:25:59 AM · #235 |
| In my opinion, whether we choose the SC or not, they do a great job for the site and I don't have a problem at all. I can see the point of the community choosing who it thinks is SC, but as hbunch said, she was chosen by the community anyway. Leave things be. If we need more SC then it should be considered. Otherwise, I'm more than happy with things and when I've needed to contact an SC member I have never had a problem. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 06:39:52 AM · #236 |
I am sorry for posting this, but I just have to get it off my chest.
Dave, you, your attitude, your demeanor, your immaturity, and your inability to participate in an adult manor are the main thing that makes DPC suck for me. I have rants turned off, but I can't turn you off. You talk about your love for the site and wanting it to be better, but all you do is piss in the pond we all have to drink from. Rather than try to affect change with intelligent discourse and reasoned postings, you choose to spew.
Why does it bother me so? Because I love photography! And what you do is keep people away from it! How? Look at how much time people have put into this one absolutely idiotic thread. Time that could have been spent voting, commenting, editing, sharing, or any number of other positive activities has been spent either trying to put out the fire you started, or watching to see if it was going to be put it.
As for the site, like anything else, it evolves, and it can be improved. I truly, truly appreciate all the efforts of the SC, D&L, and the members who contribute their time and efforts to make it better.
Honestly, I really enjoyed the relative peace and quiet while you were gone, and I wouldn't mind more of that. A LOT more of that... |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:00:52 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
I am sorry for posting this, but I just have to get it off my chest.
|
Why do you take Dave seriously. I'm not completely sure, but I would field a guess and say that he is most of the time tongue-in-cheek and is only looking for reaction.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:02:21 AM · #238 |
My 2c is simply this.. you don't have to respond to his posts really, I could not care less what opinion he has about this site or the SC for that matter, for me, I have never had a mix with any member of the SC, in fact I had only one real gripe with a member that was sorted in an adult manner and is now very much HISTORY. Dave is entitled to his opinion like everyone else is, the only reason I am even responding is just to state that I personally feel the members of the SC for whatever reason they are elected do a great job, for free, and I seldom even notice their presence here in any authoritive manner. The purpose of me to join this site and remain a member here is that I believe we have a great community here of people that are willing to send other members cameras for free and meet up in groups to out together help with new comers who wish to buy gear and learn from others mistakes, man FU#K! we have a solid group of people here with a lot of love in their hearts I am proud to be a member here. I think that if someone has an issue with the SC then its up to them to take it further, the total LACK of support he recieved to his soap-box rantings proves that very few share in his opinions. I for one will remain a member here for time in all and I try not to let the bad feelings of others distract me from my goal here and that is to LEARN, and to try to help others.
Sorry it was 10c not 2c but who cares.... hehehe, C'mon you lot, it's 2006 let's rejoice and be HAPPY!
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:08:52 AM · #239 |
I am only new to this site, and still finding my way around. Recently I came accross this thread, and have been so disappointed at all the negitives, and feel we have lost site of what this site is all about. PHOTOGRAPHY, Yes, it not about nit picking the ones who put so much time and effort into what we all are so thankful for. In my short time here, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. It is such a wonderful site, and I have loved every minute I have spent here, but I wonder what newcomers are thinking when they log on. Please go back to photography, or voting, or commenting, or just be a nice person, and be thankful to what we have. Lets lay this to rest, and don't undo all the good things that has been done. I guess some of you may think a new member shouldn't have a say, but it's a new year, so lets all be positive and happy. I had to all get this off my chest, just like "skiprow" and all the other positive threads.....
Originally posted by skiprow:
I am sorry for posting this, but I just have to get it off my chest.
Dave, you, your attitude, your demeanor, your immaturity, and your inability to participate in an adult manor are the main thing that makes DPC suck for me. I have rants turned off, but I can't turn you off. You talk about your love for the site and wanting it to be better, but all you do is piss in the pond we all have to drink from. Rather than try to affect change with intelligent discourse and reasoned postings, you choose to spew.
Why does it bother me so? Because I love photography! And what you do is keep people away from it! How? Look at how much time people have put into this one absolutely idiotic thread. Time that could have been spent voting, commenting, editing, sharing, or any number of other positive activities has been spent either trying to put out the fire you started, or watching to see if it was going to be put it.
As for the site, like anything else, it evolves, and it can be improved. I truly, truly appreciate all the efforts of the SC, D&L, and the members who contribute their time and efforts to make it better.
Honestly, I really enjoyed the relative peace and quiet while you were gone, and I wouldn't mind more of that. A LOT more of that... |
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:27:10 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I think you should have to be at least 22 years old to be a member of the site council. Most people under that is just too young and immature in my opinion.
I think there should be a seperate SPAM forum just so people can type up their SPAM.
I think elections for site council members should be held once a year when their term is up...and they should be voted on, and nominated by, ALL paying members. |
Not to defend SC but like the Critique Club it is a thankless job. Yes (in my opinion) some do go off on a power trip every now and then but for the most part they do a job that not to many people want or could do without doing more damage/destruction. For the most part they act fairly professionally and probably get more shit then the job is worth. You gotta ask yourself this, who would you recommend do that job and what would make them do a better job the whats being done??? Please don't get me wrong because in NO way am I siding with SC but I do think they have calmed down a lot since my rant about them locking threads (and yes that was eventually locked as well). If you go by the T.O.S. and actually read it ALL, you will find that a lot more threads can be locked and if they inforced the rules fully then a few of us would no longer be members. Perhaps a trial run for 1 month of FULL T.O.S. would help you see exactly what I'm refering to might help. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:32:02 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
I have a Sam̢۪s Club membership but they don̢۪t ask me to vote in management or even employees. If I have a problem with management I have the right to go up the latter, in DPChallenge that would be D&L. |
Just to let you know they don't answer PM's regarding abuse by SC. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:45:31 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
I have a Sam̢۪s Club membership but they don̢۪t ask me to vote in management or even employees. If I have a problem with management I have the right to go up the latter, in DPChallenge that would be D&L. |
Just to let you know they don't answer PM's regarding abuse by SC. |
Actually they do. When I was still a member, I reported a SC member for what I felt was abuse of his/her/its position. I reported it in a well thought, articulate manner. I explained why I was concerned about the behavior. I got a very polite reply back from one of them. He said he did not see an immediate problem, but that he would take a look into it.
Based on the situation and subsiquent response I was satisfied with that reply.
So Drew and Langdon do listen. If you have a genuine issue with Site Council conduct, you need to come up with specifics, have a calm, well presented argument, and then take the time to present it.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:51:11 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
.....I get shit from doing this, and 1/2 the time we get shit ON.
I supose it's the other 1/2 of you that keep me going. Thanks to those who love us. |
It may be a bit of a stretch... but I would wager that the number of people on this site that DO appreciate all the time and effort you spend on this site is WAAAAAAAAAY more than half.
I am one of the multitudes that admires you and the others on the SC.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:52:20 AM · #244 |
Originally posted by blemt:
you need to come up with specifics, have a calm, well presented argument, and then take the time to present it. |
Or just start another Rant thread.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:00:08 AM · #245 |
I would like to add that while a couple people keep saying that I have no support and that my post is stupid and pointless, I don't feel that is the case.
Every person that agreed with any point I made, I feel is a success for the cause. I honestly had no intent of starting a thread, making a bunch of silly suggestions and having that be the way it is. I just got the ball rolling, so to speak.
If you would sit back and read some of the posts from members such as Bobster, graphicfunk, and certain others, you will see views and ideas presented in a much better manner than I, personally, am able to present them in. Those posts are well-written by folks that obviously have nice class and skill in writing.
One thing, to me, is evident, and seems to repeat itself. The site coucil represents us, the community. I, personally, worked in retail for quite some time. It is a very thankless job where you feel under-appreciated most of the time. You need to sit there and stay calm and smile at the people that have mean or nasty things to say, even though you know with certainty that you are correct. It's a hard thing to do, but not impossible.
As far as me being disruptive, I don't see how that's possible. The only threads I have participated on were threads that were already spiraling rapidly downhill into an endless debate of nothingness, or a thread where I started myself. It is NOT like I'm going out there, finding perfectly good posts and starting some ridiculous rant right after someone's perfectly innocent comment -- that is the main point that seems to be overlooked by everyone who accuses me of being disruptive. How can you be disruptful in something that is already disrupted?
--
Anyway, in closing, yeah, I think the site needs some changes. What they should be or what they need to be to keep everyone happy, I can't be sure. But it would be nice to have a normal discussion where the sarcasm and attitudes are left at the door...but I do know that it should be about adaptation and keeping things fair.
Like I said, read through some of the posts by bobster and graphicfunk (among others) to see some good ideas presented in a more professional manner, one of which I am obviously not capable of.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:00:19 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=HBunch]... but I would wager that the number of people on this site that DO appreciate all the time and effort you spend on this site . . . |
Meeee too! I have been a member for a couple of years now, and I have never had the site council be anything but very quick to respond, courteous, helfpul, understanding, efficient. Sorry, but I think they have a tough, demanding job. I'm sorry to see them get trashed here by some.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:19:00 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Not to defend SC but like the Critique Club it is a thankless job. Yes (in my opinion) some do go off on a power trip every now and then but for the most part they do a job that not to many people want or could do without doing more damage/destruction. For the most part they act fairly professionally and probably get more shit then the job is worth. |
notonline -- i've got to admit that coming from you, this is the biggest compliment in the entire thread. the fact that you didn't attach your signature to it is also quite refreshing.
i've tangled with a few souls here in the past. that's the benefit/detriment to interacting with people in such a faceless manner. however, i don't think i've ever abused my "power" (ha ha) as an SC member. there have been forum interactions where i probably went too far in my arguments, but i would have done the same whether i was on the SC or not. i understand that we are held to a higher standard, and i'm focused on doing that more.
with that being said, however, i don't think it's fair that the SC should be held responsible for anything they've said in this thread. it was started as an inflammatory attack from the very first post, and started by a member who has caused much irritation in the past. we should probably all have ignored it but, as has been said before, we're just human. don't mess with my homies.
and, since we're going into SC history trivia, at the time i was selected i knew one SC member fairly well and had PM'd Manic a couple of times asking for help when i had a desperate linux crisis at work. other than that, my interactions with the existing SC members were solely through the forums. i'm positive that not everyone voted for me when i applied, and i'm sure some would still not vote for me if they had the chance to do it again. we really are very different individuals with opinions and thoughts all our own. we have some good knock-down drag-outs too. we don't just hold hands and skip around while randomly locking threads and DQing shots that did better than our own.
finally, i just have to say this:
dp -- CJ hid a post that was a direct attack on you, and then edited your post that quoted the attack. he was not doing it out of love for you. he was doing it because NO ONE is supposed to be the target of such an attack here, and one of our jobs is to monitor that. it doesn't matter that you're man enough to take it. the post didn't belong here at all. it was removed for the benefit of the community. for you to complain about it really demonstrates your lack of understanding about this community. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:32:37 AM · #248 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
finally, i just have to say this:
dp -- CJ hid a post that was a direct attack on you, and then edited your post that quoted the attack. he was not doing it out of love for you. he was doing it because NO ONE is supposed to be the target of such an attack here, and one of our jobs is to monitor that. it doesn't matter that you're man enough to take it. the post didn't belong here at all. it was removed for the benefit of the community. for you to complain about it really demonstrates your lack of understanding about this community. |
Well it has a lot of bearing on everything. It was the first post written by anyone else in this thread, and was done so in a combative, negeative, inflammatory manner, which has been deemed innapropriate, even in such an 'abrasive' thread to begin with.
That particular post, which is no longer around, may have served the purpose in showing every reader just why the thread went south...or showed that people's attitude of change sucks. Now it's gone, and the fourth post is a post of me flying off the handle at, apparently, nothing because it no longer exists.
It's a case of selective editing, which in the end makes me look just a little bit more goofy than I'm sure I already looked. But whatever, it surely helps your cause, in that sense then.
If you are bent on editing every post where I may or may not be 'personally attacked' I suggest you go back through this thread and edit some others then.
Originally posted by muckpond:
with that being said, however, i don't think it's fair that the SC should be held responsible for anything they've said in this thread
|
Why should people not be held responsible for what they say all the time? If the site council is pardoned for their misrepresentations, outright sarcasm, and lack of professionalism in particular threads because acting calmly and rationally just doesn't 'fit the bill' at the time, then what is the point of trying to call yourselves professionals or 'upstanding members of the community?' Either keep it calm, or don't...but your friends can't fly off the handle, attack people, stir up arguements more than they already were before, then just be pardoned from doing so.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:32:44 AM · #249 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I think you should have to be at least 22 years old to be a member of the site council. Most people under that is just too young and immature in my opinion. |
Some 18 year old people here are apparantly far more mature than some... oh, I'll just pick a random number here... 24 year old people. In my opinion, of course.
Immature (from the Cambridge dictionary)
adjective
Not behaving in a way which is as calm and wise as people expect from someone of your age.
Mature (also from the Cambridge dictionary)
adjective
Mature people behave like adults in a way that shows they are well developed emotionally:
"He's very mature for his age."
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 08:38:40 AM · #250 |
I didn't see a popcorn thingy yet.
just kidding. this is so I don't lose my spot. Kinda like a virtual bookmark. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 02:14:37 AM  |
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: 08/08/2025 02:14:37 AM EDT.
|
