| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2007 12:00:15 AM · #76 |
Wow. Such hostility. Now, this is what I understand to have gone down; correct me if I'm wrong:
Judi was getting pissed off about the hoops she was having to jump through. She made a snide comment and Frisca made one in return. Someone's derogatory post was deleted and the thread locked.
Big deal. The SC work hard to keep this site running. Why attack them? The thought police? What would the SC gain by censoring everything that they didn't agree with? More absolute power over the minds of those who frequent DPC? People make mistakes, the SC included. Maybe it wasn't a great idea to delete a post, but the SC patrol the forums using their own discretion and they all aim to better the site. If you're so frickin' bothered by the way the SC do their work, go read a book. 1984 if you want real dystopia.
Naivete on my part? Maybe. But everyone just needs to cool down and get off the net for a while. Go take pictures. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:04:17 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just asking a question here...
If an SC is misbehaving, how effective would it be to report the incident "right then"? Couldn't he/she just delete the complaint? |
We can "hide" but we can't "disappear" a post or thread. Any other SC member can still see what's been posted. Locked threads don't disappear, they merely drop down in the list of recently posted-to threads. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:04:48 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by mk:
The only threads that completely disappear are flat-out spam. We don't disappear any kind of regular threads.
|
No way !!! Some of them made NO sense at all - "spam" threads would make sense. I am NOT talking about those at all. |
Um, yes way. Threads get moved forum to forum but the only ones that get hidden are spam...and sometimes when we catch outtake threads at the beginning, we hide those as well. Everything else is just locked.
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by mk:
I understand that you aren't keeping records but it would be much more helpful if you contacted us at the time and either asked specifically or requested that we be more clear in our actions rather than just make vague accusations of "thought policing" several months down the line, you know? |
Yes, it would be helpful if I had concrete examples, however, some of them I couldn't have even if I wanted to, because the were disappeared !!! Someone poofed my evidence !!! |
We can still see "poofed" threads so your concerns can still be addressed.
Originally posted by Beetle:
Saying something at the time would also be very helpful, but that only works when that thread still exists so that one COULD add to it and ask/comment. It would also help if certain SC members wouldn't have a tendency to get very caustic and downright mean.
I HAVE mentioned the "thought police" concept several times over the months, even attempted to ask for reasons. I usually get ignored, or at times I get one of those nasty replies thrown my way - not very encouraging at all.
|
//dpchallenge.com/help_contact.php
That always works for contacting us, even after posts have been locked. Tickets are always answered. Granted, coming at us with terms like "thought police" isn't generally the best way to get candid answers.
Originally posted by Beetle:
Sometimes some of you guys make it very hard to remain sweet and positive.
|
Ditto, my friend, ditto. :)
Originally posted by Beetle:
All I am asking for is for you all to only police/disappear things that really NEED to vanish because other methods didn't work, not do it just because you don't agree with it. If it is civil and sane, then I think people are entitled to an opinion, even if it does differ from yours (again, general you). |
Again, only spam gets vanished but the rest is a fair enough request. I'd certainly invite you to contact me if you felt I was acting unfairly and squelching opinions (which I usually aim to do through sarcasm rather than abuse of power) and I suspect the rest of the SC would as well. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:05:46 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...Please feel free to respond... As I indicated previously, I am merely seeking some enlightenment on the subject.
Ray |
Thanks. :) I'll hasten to point out here that I cannot speak for all SC on this, but am trying to address your concerns from my own POV which admittedly is a bit of both personal/SC. |
Thank you ever so much for your thoughtful and well articulated summation. Your recapitulation of the SC process does indeed provide me with a better understanding of what does transpire in those situations that could be categorized as confrontational.
If a very much abridged version of this mechanism could be provided prior to locking a thread, I am certain that it would eradicate the concerns that I (and possibly others) have.
As an aside, a timeout is in my humble opinion a fantastic idea.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:05:53 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just asking a question here...
If an SC is misbehaving, how effective would it be to report the incident "right then"? Couldn't he/she just delete the complaint? |
Nothing ever gets deleted anywhere. Every post, every thread, every ticket, every reported comment...it's all in the system. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:09:33 AM · #81 |
Dang. It's amazing we still have ANY SC to help with this site with all of the hostility and finger pointing that gets directed their way.
Here's some of what they are supposed to be monitoring just in regards to the forum area of DPChallenge: Forum Rules
It can't be easy, and recently probably not very fun either.
Personally, I've been satisfied with the assistance and response times when I've needed their help. Very much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:14:41 AM · #82 |
Alright then, mk, I'll just agree to disagree with you on a certain point.
After all, on the whole I/we do appreciate you guys very much :-)
I haven't been reading forums anywhere near as much as I used to (because of this issue), but should I see another example where I think the locking/poofing was entirely unreasonable, I promise to let you know then and there.
Thanks for all the GOOD things you guys do for DPC.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:15:12 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's some of what they are supposed to be monitoring just in regards to the forum area of DPChallenge: Forum Rules
It can't be easy, and recently probably not very fun either.
|
I would quite readily volunteer my services to monitor any and all infractions to Rule #6. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:15:50 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by mk:
Nothing ever gets deleted anywhere. Every post, every thread, every ticket, every reported comment...it's all in the system. |
That is promising. So, if I send a ticket about mk beating my dog, it goes nowhere if mk finds it? *hypothetical ofcourse, mk doesn't beat dogs, only men |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:19:27 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's some of what they are supposed to be monitoring just in regards to the forum area of DPChallenge: Forum Rules
It can't be easy, and recently probably not very fun either.
|
I would quite readily volunteer my services to monitor any and all infractions to Rule #6. :O)
Ray |
Hah! You made me look. I forgot about that one. :) |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:21:09 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by mk:
Nothing ever gets deleted anywhere. Every post, every thread, every ticket, every reported comment...it's all in the system. |
That is promising. So, if I send a ticket about mk beating my dog, it goes nowhere if mk finds it? *hypothetical ofcourse, mk doesn't beat dogs, only men |
You might go somewhere but the ticket will stay in the open tickets area until someone deals with it and then be filed in the permanent archives, easily accessed by all.
But I'm a total animal softy so I would never beat a dog...even the ones that look like little rats.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 12:48:17 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If forum behaviour drains resources from other areas, I seriously think you should have more volunteers monitoring the forums and doing nothing else. They're a big part of the site, and most members enjoy using them. And I think you'd have no shortage of volunteers for this job. Some with scruples even! |
Whoops... I just got PMed that this may very well be misconstrued. No, I wasn't suggesting that any of the current SC don't have scruples... far from it. I was trying to be funny by saying, many volunteers would come forward, and perhaps some might even have scruples... er.. mmm.. it sounded way better in my head. Hope nobody took this wrong! :/ |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 01:05:38 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Louis:
If forum behaviour drains resources from other areas, I seriously think you should have more volunteers monitoring the forums and doing nothing else. They're a big part of the site, and most members enjoy using them. And I think you'd have no shortage of volunteers for this job. Some with scruples even! |
Whoops... I just got PMed that this may very well be misconstrued. No, I wasn't suggesting that any of the current SC don't have scruples... far from it. I was trying to be funny by saying, many volunteers would come forward, and perhaps some might even have scruples... er.. mmm.. it sounded way better in my head. Hope nobody took this wrong! :/ |
I believe Louis's suggestion has a lot of merit. If SC is so pressed for time with their myriad duties in these many areas, and they do not want to increase size of SC per se because of problems such as too many chefs in the kitchen on challenge DQs and the like (that could get extremely cumbersome) then just create another category of side administration called "moderators" and restrict their function to the moderation of the forums.
I'm a founder of a large game-laying site where we had to do a LOT of supervision for cheating, and I'm aware how time-consuming that can be. I've been a moderator on large poetry sites where just keeping up with the forum posts and enforcing the rules of civility is a full-time job. IMO the two don't have a lot to do with each other. The one job is best handled by analytical people well-versed in the rules, and the other job is best handled by diplomatic, effective communicators.
Why not appoint some "Moderators" and let SC concentrate on the core business of the site?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 01:20:20 AM · #89 |
I would comment, but I am a victim of this new "Time Out" program
 |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 01:58:11 AM · #90 |
To add another concrete suggestion to the one Louis had:
Maybe some of the people who are most bothered by all of this can communicate over PM and find out which one or one of them would be willing to start an off-site forum, with no locking/censorship what have you? Yes, I know it is hard to go to multiple sites sometimes when all the people you want to talk with are right here, but it might help having a place where you know you won't get censored.
Not sure if this would work or if it is even a good idea, just throwing it out there. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 03:57:54 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Saying something at the time would also be very helpful, but that only works when that thread still exists so that one COULD add to it and ask/comment. It would also help if certain SC members wouldn't have a tendency to get very caustic and downright mean.
I HAVE mentioned the "thought police" concept several times over the months, even attempted to ask for reasons. I usually get ignored, or at times I get one of those nasty replies thrown my way - not very encouraging at all. |
Who the heck are you that SC needs to justify their actions to you?
And to tell you the truth, your perception seems to be getting in the way of the issue at hand......if SC doesn't feel, or others for that matter, that they're being caustic and mean, how on earth are they supposed to justify, or explain it?
I know if it was I in that position and you called me thought police, I'd certainly be of a mind that you would be the one being caustic and mean and I'd remind you that you could be penalized for being abusive and out of line for making such an accusation without knowing all sides of the equation.
I certainly don't feel that you would be owed any explanation for anything.
Originally posted by Beetle:
Sometimes some of you guys make it very hard to remain sweet and positive. |
Wow!
There's a thoughtful, courteous, inspired way to keep the lines of communication open and upbeat.
Originally posted by Beetle:
All I am asking for is for you all to only police/disappear things that really NEED to vanish because other methods didn't work, not do it just because you don't agree with it. If it is civil and sane, then I think people are entitled to an opinion, even if it does differ from yours (again, general you). |
Yes, and guess what......if SC doesn't think that what's being said or done is appropriate and you don't agree, then they're unreasobnable, not you, right?
Who's being the thought police now?
I know you're certainly not speaking for me, so relative to that, why don't you keep your opinions to yourself.......I don't feel that you represent my interests as a user/member in the slightest.
Gee......how's that feel now?
You're being caustic, mean, and unreasonable from what I see, and not representing the best interests of the membership at large......should I choose to send a ticket to SC because I don't feel that you're playing nice, and they agree, would you be right back up there saying "thought police"?
Or should SC sanction me because I don't happen to agree with you on any count?
Is that their choice?
So given these two scenarios, how can they possibly work an equitable scenario?
You have to consider this is part of the kind of garbage they have to deal with every day over and above the regular workload.
What's their motivation to offer forums in the first place?
Think howe much easier it would be if they didn't have people pissing and moaning at them all the time about the slightest perception of impropriety, much less being called into question every time they render a decision.
Where does it state that we have the right to do that anyway?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 04:26:18 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I believe Louis's suggestion has a lot of merit. If SC is so pressed for time with their myriad duties in these many areas, and they do not want to increase size of SC per se because of problems such as too many chefs in the kitchen on challenge DQs and the like (that could get extremely cumbersome) then just create another category of side administration called "moderators" and restrict their function to the moderation of the forums. |
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either.
I am having a really hard time understanding why given the amount of benefits that are available here why there aren't more here trying to help make the detractors aware that maybe their perception isn't unwarranted, unwanted, and, God forbid, erroneous.
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 04:40:18 AM · #93 |
For those of you who think that anarchy, mayhem, abuse, and argument are a way of life and that the First Amendmentment is the be-all to end all, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, maybe this is for you....
//www.trollvalhalla.com/index.php
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:39:14 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me. |
And sycophants. Always the sycophants. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 08:13:39 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me. |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
And sycophants. Always the sycophants. |
Wow.......NICE!!!!
Except that it doesn't make much sense if I don't want anything.
Like I'd want their job with you lot!
Just been there, done that, and don't have much use for a bunch of self-indulgent crybabies with no concept of what the job takes.
I hope you get whatever it is you think you want out of this.
Screw y'all.....I'm done and going back to taking pictures.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 08:57:27 AM · #96 |
I really don't think this thread is going anywhere - at least anywhere new - but I'm scared to lock it. It's just deteriorated into name calling (if that wasn't what it was from the start). What to dooooOOOooo?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:22:01 AM · #97 |
i have not participated in either of these threads to this point, but i used my super-secret sc powers to look at the general discussion and member discussion forums to post some stats for discussion.
since june 1st:
member discussion
threads created: 125
threads locked (duplicate topics): 2
threads locked (deteriorated discussion): 1 (i believe this is the one that started all of this)
hidden threads (duplicate topics): 3
general discussion
threads created: 1325
hidden threads (spam): 9
hidden threads (duplicate topics): 12
hidden threads (ToS violations): 2
hidden threads (i can't tell why): 1
threads locked (deteriorated discussion): 3
threads locked (duplicate topics): 10
--
what this says to me is that the SC needs to review two policies:
1) consistency on how to handle duplicate topic threads. should they be hidden? should they be locked? there is an argument for both.
2) ensure that the last post in each thread is by the SC who is locking the thread with an explanation why that thread is locked. and, if it's a duplicate thread, a link to the other thread covering that topic.
--
i will say that monitoring the forums is a large part of the SC's job and that other forum moderators are more than likely unnecessary.
i would also like to say that "thought police" is a pretty strong and really undeserved crack.
thanks.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:24:20 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me. |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
And sycophants. Always the sycophants. |
Wow.......NICE!!!!
Except that it doesn't make much sense if I don't want anything. |
Funny how we all have differing ways of interpreting things NikonJeb!!!
When I read the comment posted by RouterGuy, and took into consideration the fact that initiated his comment by using the word "and", I interpreted this as meaning he was adding "sycophants" to YOUR list, and not directing his comments directly to YOU;
Also, if we exclude this possibility, we must take into consideration the fact that he used the plural when referring to "Sycophants",and as such, I would be more inclined to believe that he was applying the term to these "Fair Weather Friends" you alluded to and NOT you.
This could be yet another example of how it is that sometimes things get misconstrued.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 10:49:02. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:27:26 AM · #99 |
oh, i also meant to say that sometimes when a post is hidden for inflammatory or offensive reasons, replies to that particular post are often hidden as well. perhaps that's why some of you have noticed your "innocuous" posts disappearing? just a thought.
it does no good to remove a single worthless post if there are replies to it. it's all fruit from the "poisonous tree." all of the related posts should be removed, imho, to keep the thread on topic.
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 10:27:53.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:31:30 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's all fruit from the "poisonous tree." all of the related posts should be removed, imho, to keep the thread on topic. |
The poisonous tree, bearing the illicit fruit of our thoughts. As a thought policeman it's your job to prune back the bad fruit and harvest the joy and love that you know we all harbour in our hearts. |
|
