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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Forum Etiquette: Please Read
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 134, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/12/2006 02:34:31 PM · #76
Let's not go down that road.
 01/12/2006 02:35:40 PM · #77
isnt this the official pick on Bear day ??

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Di:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I kind of like being a "roadmodel"...


If I see your self-portrait in the next Open challenge, it's getting a 1. ;-P


Why you dont wanna see Bear's nose hairs ??


Does this fall within the new civility guidelines? My nose hairs are quivering in anticipation of Di getting slapped on the wrist :-)

R.
01/12/2006 03:16:12 PM · #78
seems to be... I can handle it.

R.
 01/12/2006 03:27:49 PM · #79
Amazing how a serious subject like forum etiquette involves Bear_music's quivering nose hair. LOL!

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 15:28:20.
 01/12/2006 03:29:40 PM · #80
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Amazing how a serious subject like forum etiquette involves Bear_music's quivering nose hair. LOL!


Well, apparently The Bear has some SERIOUS nose hair ;-)
 01/12/2006 03:48:14 PM · #81
you got that right :)
lets be nice to each other ... Peace ,,V.
 01/12/2006 03:50:40 PM · #82
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Amazing how a serious subject like forum etiquette involves Bear_music's quivering nose hair. LOL!


Well, apparently The Bear has some SERIOUS nose hair ;-)


A nose 'fro methinks...
 01/12/2006 04:39:20 PM · #83
NORMAL people call it a "moustache", folks. I actually possess a nasal trimmer and use it regularly, if that's not more than you want to know...

Why are we talking about this? Can we blame Di?

R.
 01/12/2006 04:58:55 PM · #84
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why are we talking about this? Can we blame Di?


We've Di-gressed. ;-)
 01/12/2006 05:10:42 PM · #85
GROAN
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why are we talking about this? Can we blame Di?


We've Di-gressed. ;-)
01/12/2006 05:45:05 PM · #86
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I hope that this does not curtail logger head debates - the disparate nature of the participants here makes politics an interesting discussion.

I have studiously tried to avoid any name calling or goading, though I have seen it occur (and experienced it) in some otherwise civil, if polarised, debates [please let me know if the perception is otherwise].

Otherwise I support the enforcement of civility and good etiquette.



I assure you that we do not intend to disallow any type of debate. Quite the opposite, what we are doing is trying to ensure that our forums remain a place where one can debate intelligently and civilly. We just want to remind people that it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

~Terry
 01/12/2006 05:47:10 PM · #87
Sort of "play the ball, not the person", about time I would say... ;-)
 01/13/2006 05:49:10 AM · #88
Ok, I have to ask? The recent thread on 'sensitive' people has brought to the surface a concern I feel needs aired. Are we seriously going to go down the path of needing to invest in a Polically correct translator?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for civility -- there is nothing more tiring on a forum than to read (or post) a good point in a debate and then have to wade thru the pages of deluge that resulted from someone having no counter to the point and resorting to undermining the source of the point with personal attacks. However, there are people who make a point of taking offense at everything communicated in their virtual presence. Surely we are not going to stop communicating (which is where pleasing such people ultimately leads) just to keep from some slight possiblity that someone somewhere might possibly take offense.

The main point here is 'Where is the line going to be drawn?' I hope those looking for something to take offense with will bear with me -- and I will even run this statement thru the politically correct translator just to be safe. but, [PC] I feel there comes a point, past which a person really needs to just grow up and not take every little general thing that happens around them personally [/PC].

I'm sure many are reading this and thinking I've gone off the deep end, but I would rather not have to worry about asking for help with lighting for fear some decendant of involuntary immigrant labor might take offense at the term 'slave flash'.

So, is there a line to be drawn, past which free communication is allowed? Or are we to walk in quicksand, never knowing when we will sink and find our posts edited and our names stained with being 'insensitive'?

If I may, I would suggest the line be drawn at not making critical remarks against a specific, identifiable entity. That would of course include forum participants, political leaders (ex. Bush), corporations (ex. Microsoft) and nations (ex. US). Although I am certain there are some that will consider it going to far to forbid attacks on any of those listed as examples. ;)

And one more thing, please don't get hung up on the forum thread mentioned earlier, it was mentioned as the starting point that grew into my concern -- I have no disagreement with the term 'Redneck' being wiped from the thread as it added nothing to the discussion. And while were at it, regarding me earlier post in this thread -- yes I am serious this time. :D I really want to know if I should bone up on being politically correct -- err, wait...can I say 'bone'? :D

David
 01/13/2006 07:06:34 AM · #89
Originally posted by David.C:
If I may, I would suggest the line be drawn at not making critical remarks against a specific, identifiable entity. That would of course include forum participants, political leaders (ex. Bush), corporations (ex. Microsoft) and nations (ex. US). Although I am certain there are some that will consider it going to far to forbid attacks on any of those listed as examples. ;)
David


You are perfectly right in your assumption that some will consider this "Going a bit too far" , and let me be the first to indicate my reluctance to embark on this slippery slope.

I do not believe that in this instance the issue of "Critical Remarks" is that which should be at the forefront, but rather "Personal Attacks" on members of the community. If indeed we are to remove comments falling within the former category, we might as well consider closing down the comment section at the bottom of the voting pages since constructive criticism would also fall under the category of "Critical Remarks".

Entities such as countries, presidents and large corporations are under constant scrutiny, and to suggest that no negative (insert critical) comments be allowed is a bit much.

Lastly, "Boning Up", as far as I can remember was a term used by persons who utilized a bone to hone cutting implements such as knifes, axes and the like, whereas today the term is more likely used in reference to cramming for exams.

No offence intended to anyone.

Ray
 01/13/2006 07:24:04 AM · #90
David,

Great questions.

We do not intend to disallow criticism. Quite the opposite, I believe (and I suspect the rest of Site Council, and the rest of the community will agree) that honest and constructive criticism is essential to better photography, and at the end of the day, that's why we're all here.

The main point that we are trying to make here is that it our goal to defuse potentially inflammatory situations before they get out of hand. Most of the time, we can accomplish that with a gentle nudge in the right direction. Of course, this is totally dependent on the community helping us out by reporting potential problems as soon as they see them, and resisting the urge to call each other out publicly for preceived violations of etiquette.

I don't promise that everyone will agree with every decision we make, or indeed that we won't make any mistakes in our efforts to keep things civil. What I do promise, though, is that we will do our level best to deal with each situation as fairly and properly as we know how. In return, I ask for your trust that we are doing so, and your patience when you feel we may have made a mistake. Feel free to question our judgment, but please meet us halfway by doing so in a calm and rational manner (as you have here).

Thanks,
~Terry
 01/13/2006 07:55:53 AM · #91
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

We do not intend to disallow criticism. Quite the opposite, I believe (and I suspect the rest of Site Council, and the rest of the community will agree) that honest and constructive criticism is essential to better photography, and at the end of the day, that's why we're all here.

The main point that we are trying to make here is that it our goal to defuse potentially inflammatory situations before they get out of hand.


Well, originally, I was going to keep quiet on the subject, but since a nice little discussion is developing, I figure I'll share my thoughts.

Anyway, I see this potential new 'ruleset' as a weapon to be used selectively against certain members. Let's take a person, for example, who has gotten into heated discussions with site council members -- now, obviously if that person gets into a debate and some sarcasm and questionable content flows throughout the discussion, BOOM hit the ban button.

In the end, I don't think that 'policing' forum discussions with an extra ruleset, like that mentioned above needs to be brought about. Personally, I feel that if a topic is headed off-course, a site council member should interject, add that a few people are bordering on causing a disruption, not get involved in the discussion, thus adding fuel to the fire, as they say, then possibly move the thread to the rant section.

Personally, if a discussion is going on, and all parties involved are acting questionable, I don't see how, without some type of formal warning, you can take action against one party that was involved...I hope this ruleset wasn't introduced for that matter, but you guys certainly have me, along with others, afraid of voicing our opinions now, in all honesty.

I hope what I'm saying is able to be understood. Let me give an example, just incase. Say a thread is going in the wrong direction (by personal interpretation of a site council member). So that site council member sees that someone is acting, what they believe to be, innapropriately. They should not just up and ban a person without warning. I think the new rules should create some formal type of warning system. Where the site council member adds into the discussion that any further heated debate or inflammatory comments not helpful to the discussion will be dealt with and people may become suspended. That post that the site council member makes should not be followed by 3 or 4 quotes of folks involved in the discussion, thus inviting more heated debate to the thread. Know what I'm saying?
 01/13/2006 08:03:01 AM · #92
I am the same in real life as I am in this cyber space. If that gets me into trouble then so be it.
 01/13/2006 08:16:51 AM · #93
David, I can understand your concern. :)

This ruleset is being more actively used because people have not been responding to warnings from SC members that they need to calm down. There are some folks who have presented the attitude of, "I can do what I want, when I want, and if you don't like it- go jump".

16 pages later you have a full fledged flamewar, grumpy users, grumpy SC, and a generally not fun DPC. :)

Bottom line is this- if and I stress IF you get a combination of thread based and personal message based requests from SC to cool it, take them seriously. Do not continue to argue the point. The bottom line is that it's not worth it.

Turn off the computer, and walk away. Take a few deep breaths. We are not going to be banning people lickety split. Contrary to popular opinion we do not have a smite button. This is a final tool that we really hope not to use. But we do feel it's nessecary to let the community know we see that the forums need a little help.

Again, this is just one of many tools that are in the toolbox.

01/13/2006 08:25:24 AM · #94
Originally posted by blemt:
This ruleset is being more actively used because people have not been responding to warnings from SC members that they need to calm down. There are some folks who have presented the attitude of, "I can do what I want, when I want, and if you don't like it- go jump".


OK...I just wanted to make sure that was the case. I think that 'combatitive' or 'innapropriate' is a subjective term, open for personal interpretation, sort of like a person's pain threshold. Some people get pricked by a needle and think they are dying, some people get an arm cut off, and drive themselves to the hospital...know what I mean? Some people just see themselves as defending a point and do so to their best ability, and take offense to literally nothing, while others get offended the second things turn south...

That being said, I just don't want to accidentally violate the rule. The past is the past, and we can't change that, but I vote that if someone is getting out of line that the site council should definately include a warning that they are, in fact, out of line. Personally, I don't always check private messages, and without a little notification somewhere that says "you have a new message" I'm afraid that during an exchange, private messages may be overlooked by some.

Anyway, no, I'm not trying to be combative here or create a heated debate, just sharring a few thoughts. Just as anything I say, take them with a grain of salt.
 01/13/2006 08:31:07 AM · #95
I'm not taking it as combative in any way, shape or form. Promise. :)

Your point on PMs is a very good and valid one. It's an excellent reminder for us. That's also why people will get a thread based heads up as well.

01/13/2006 08:34:35 AM · #96
Originally posted by blemt:
Contrary to popular opinion we do not have a smite button. This is a final tool that we really hope not to use.
...
Again, this is just one of many tools that are in the toolbox.

So you do have a smite button? :o
 01/13/2006 10:17:24 AM · #97


;-)
 01/13/2006 10:29:11 AM · #98
hummmm, I thought this was a privately owned business where the owners can do as they please. If they doa good job then they have business, if they do a bad job then everyone leaves. So lets give it a chance. If you like it stay, if you don't then go to another site where you can also submit photos in competition. I believe we have all heard of people not happy with a number of issues here. Mostly the flames and "mean" comments left by some to others. Many members here are members of other sites and in most part the feeling that the "jerks" are all on dpc. If this business "dpc" can clean it up some they will have more business. I for one have several other friends that after a very short time decided not to be paid members because of the "wars and rumors of wars".

Now dpc could have asked for a vote .... BUT they didn't because they own the site. So enjoy it or leave. No sense on starting another war.

Let's be nice and work more towards constructive critisizm and pats on the back. Comments such as "this picture sucks, the focus is so bad it makes a blind person dizzy" can much better be said by something like "focus lacks sharpness" Does not meet challenge comments are a waste of space. Just go back and look at many of the over-processed winners and top 10, many are really stretching the box too.

Can't we just all be friends, dpc has gained a reputation of being a photo site for jerks, it is time to clean it up. Have fun but remember others feeling too.
 01/13/2006 10:35:16 AM · #99
cool I like the forums here anyway better than other ones but I have not noticed anyone hmmm being mean
 01/13/2006 10:44:08 AM · #100
I just wanted to point out that this is not a new ruleset. These have been the rules all along. This is simply a reminder.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 05:44:28 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/27/2025 05:44:28 PM EDT.