| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2007 12:36:57 AM · #76 |
Seems that recently someone here rallied for a delete comment feature ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 12:42:34 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Why not leave the quotes in place (so that we can see WHAT the fuss is about), but remove the NAMES in that post? Kinda hard to for the man to defend his position if he can't present the evidence...
~Billy
On behalf of me, and NOT aimed @ anyone in particular ;) |
In the lead post, Alfredo stated his goals for this post were to offer an explanation of his rationale behind the photograph, for feedback on the photography, "hopefully devoid of the intense emotion that it elicited while it was being voted on", and to discuss the role of emotion in successful images, and the effect of a title on those emotions. None of those requires the comments, and it could be argued that the comments are counterproductive to keeping the discussion "devoid of the intense emotion that it elicited while it was being voted on."
That, and I'm not admin-editing 38 separate posts.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 12:43:36 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Seems that recently someone here rallied for a delete comment feature ;-) |
Asked, and answered. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 12:46:51 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Seems that recently someone here rallied for a delete comment feature ;-) |
Asked, and answered. |
I know, was just saying :-)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 03:48:48 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by rinac:
......
I'd like to ask you some things Alfredo: Do you feel better now that you've rubbed my nose in my own comment, along with anyone else who dared tell you exactly how they felt? Do you feel vindicated now that you've dragged us all out to be whipped in the center of town? |
Getting an 8 year old child, who is not a professional actor, involved in a project like this is not something to be taken lightly. Sebastian is the son of friends of mine; I thought he would make the perfect subject because he is very bright. After extensive talks with him by his parents and myself, we felt satisfied that he fully understood the subject of recreational drug use by people of any age, particularly children. He understood the objective and importance of the project, became most enthusiastic about it and was extremely proud of his contribution. His parents were equally proud and helped every step of the way.
How do you then explain to that child that the idea and concept that you convincingly presented to him as good, is judged by a large number of observers as senseless, disturbing and even stupid? Who should he believe? Why would his parents allow him to participate in something that is stupid? Why would I, his friend, entice him into doing something that is stupid?
As Rinac pointed out, it was the concept that was judged stupid, more so than the image, which was in fact praised. I knew this thread would generate reasonable comments not only on the value of the image, but also, and most importantly, on the value of the concept. These comments are immensely appreciated and will serve the purpose of validating Sebastianâs understanding of the subject.
As for Rinac, the answer to your question is NO, I do not feel better that you are being dismembered (to use your own words) by your fellow dpchallengers, it was never my intention that it should happen that way. I did not single out your comment; it singled itself out by its rudeness. It is naïve and disingenuous to claim that it is somehow logical to judge an idea as stupid without inherently making the same judgment about the originator of the idea, so, even if your friend from the Site Council disagrees (donât know how since dpc rules: âYou may not:â¦offer slanderous, rude, profane or inflammatory comments.â), your comment was a personal insult and was, obviously, also perceived so by most of those who read it, before you had it erased. At the end you have nobody to blame but yourself for the beating.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 08:14:29 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by yanko:
This is a strange thread. So the photo was pulled by the photographer? Why was it an issue that people were leaving their honest opinions on your photo? I thought you of all people would welcome freedom of expression much in the way you used it with your entry.
... |
This is quite possibly the best post I've seen in this thread. |
I didn't think it has as much flair as it did when I posted the same thing about 93 pages earlier, but yeah it's a good point. Of course now that more censorship has occurred, it's probably harder to stand behind. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 08:33:20 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I didn't think it has as much flair as it did when I posted the same thing about 93 pages earlier, but yeah it's a good point. Of course now that more censorship has occurred, it's probably harder to stand behind. |
Don't know if you are referring to the removal of the transcriptions, but if so, then calling that censorship is a bit disingenuous. We agreed that the re-posting of others' comments was out of bounds. The photog was certainly entitled to a self-DQ, however when that happens the comments go with the photo. The re-posting of others' comments, when the balance of the community has no idea whether they were transcribed accurately, or included at all, amounts to a comment edit/delete feature. This is not the intent of the self-DQ system. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 08:48:50 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I didn't think it has as much flair as it did when I posted the same thing about 93 pages earlier, but yeah it's a good point. Of course now that more censorship has occurred, it's probably harder to stand behind. |
Don't know if you are referring to the removal of the transcriptions, but if so, then calling that censorship is a bit disingenuous. We agreed that the re-posting of others' comments was out of bounds. The photog was certainly entitled to a self-DQ, however when that happens the comments go with the photo. The re-posting of others' comments, when the balance of the community has no idea whether they were transcribed accurately, or included at all, amounts to a comment edit/delete feature. This is not the intent of the self-DQ system. |
No, censorship as I referred to in my original post which I referred to above which you referred to above and slightly lower. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 09:20:06 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
::snip::
No, censorship as I referred to in my original post which I referred to above which you referred to above and slightly lower. |
(A) Ow, my brain hurts
(B) Terrificly relevant quote on your profile / bio [user]routerguy666[/user] ;)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 09:48:14 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by yanko:
This is a strange thread. So the photo was pulled by the photographer? Why was it an issue that people were leaving their honest opinions on your photo? I thought you of all people would welcome freedom of expression much in the way you used it with your entry.
... |
This is quite possibly the best post I've seen in this thread. |
I didn't think it has as much flair as it did when I posted the same thing about 93 pages earlier, but yeah it's a good point. Of course now that more censorship has occurred, it's probably harder to stand behind. |
Ha. Well at least it was 93 pages ago. When someone regurgitates one of my points it tends to be around 1-3 posts later and then they get praised for it. It seems to be an inherit aspect to online forums. Maybe there should be a sidebar that lists all the points that have been made with a counter beside each. :P
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 12:39:33 PM · #86 |
I think it's reasonable that the comments Alfredo re-posted were removed. I also think it reasonable to sound out those comments in a thread like this, had the image stayed in challenge and "ownership" of the comments remained with the original posters (interesting way to put it). That's why I think it was disingenuous of someone to suggest that they were being whipped, or of someone else to suggest that less commenting can be the only result of this kind of discussion.
To ever-so-slightly paraphrase  karmat in this thread: It is the INTERNET; people are going to have an opinion, and they are going to voice it. If you don't want people commenting on your opinion, don't post it where comments can be left.
Requisite warnings about rules violations implied, as they were over there. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 01:51:54 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think it's reasonable that the comments Alfredo re-posted were removed. I also think it reasonable to sound out those comments in a thread like this, had the image stayed in challenge and "ownership" of the comments remained with the original posters (interesting way to put it). That's why I think it was disingenuous of someone to suggest that they were being whipped, or of someone else to suggest that less commenting can be the only result of this kind of discussion.
... |
Disingenuous means to lack frankness, candor, or sincerity. I said:
Originally posted by L2:
And people wonder why comments are hard to come by. |
which was, in fact, frank/candid and also sincere.
When I see threads where the OP complains about how misunderstood their "art" was, and then other users jump on the bandwagon with praise along the lines of "Oh, how very brave of you to tackle a controversial subject with your image" and go on to ridicule those other users who expressed disagreement - it becomes clear to me that the sole purpose of the thread was to mock/ridicule those with dissenting, honest opinions.
So if we are going to talk about disingenuous, Louis, let's start with the reasons someone might exercise the self-DQ option. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 02:01:07 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by L2:
Disingenuous means to lack frankness, candor, or sincerity. |
Yes. I personally think it insincere to advocate a policy of, "If you put it out there, it will attract commentary you like and dislike" for photos, but not public comments. Meaning one's comments should be held up to the same kind of scrutiny and analysis as photos, especially if they have nothing to do with a photograph, and everything to do with one's opinion on another human being.
Originally posted by L2:
...and go on to ridicule those other users who expressed disagreement - it becomes clear to me that the sole purpose of the thread was to mock/ridicule those with dissenting, honest opinions. |
I don't see any ridicule in any of the posts expressing concern over the original comments here. If you do, perhaps you could point it out. However, I do see one of the commenters ridiculing others.
Originally posted by L2:
So if we are going to talk about disingenuous, Louis, let's start with the reasons someone might exercise the self-DQ option. |
Hm. I think he explained: an insulting comment that he didn't want associated with his model, and which he didn't include in the list. That's kind of harsh, calling Alfredo disingenuous for exercising his right to disqualify his own image. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 02:15:39 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by L2:
When I see threads where the OP complains about how misunderstood their "art" was, and then other users jump on the bandwagon with praise along the lines of "Oh, how very brave of you to tackle a controversial subject with your image" and go on to ridicule those other users who expressed disagreement - it becomes clear to me that the sole purpose of the thread was to mock/ridicule those with dissenting, honest opinions.
|
I didn't see any ridiculing of the dissenting opinions. Personally, I only disagreed with the accusatory and hostile manner in which the dissenting opinions were expressed, the ridiculous expectation that an image with such a serious theme did not belong in the "pencil" challenge and represented an intrusion by the OP into the disgruntled user's home and the equally ridiculous notion that comments about someone else's comment are unwarranted.
Message edited by author 2007-10-25 14:17:26. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 03:25:12 PM · #90 |
The only person being disingenuous in this thread is Nutzito. He doesn't mention here, that he PM'd Rina after he began this thread, inviting her to explain herself and requesting she do so in this thread and specifically NOT in a reply PM, because he wanted to know more about her reasoning. Great set-up, don't you think? And she walked right into it.
Why didn't he PM her during the challenge? If it was offending his model or others, Rina may have been able to something about it then.
Contributors to this thread were already singling her comment out before she uttered a word here. Nutzito singled her out the moment he sent that PM.
You don't have to agree with what she said. She hasn't asked anyone to. They're HER opinions, HER thoughts. No-one elses.
Nutzito asked that she express them. If you don't like it, don't read it. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 03:52:43 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Lozza:
... If you don't like it, don't read it. |
Do enlighten me... how does one determine whether or not they like something, without the benefit of reading the posits of others?
Ray |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 03:54:34 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Lozza:
You don't have to agree with what she said. She hasn't asked anyone to. They're HER opinions, HER thoughts. No-one elses. Nutzito asked that she express them. If you don't like it, don't read it. |
The reverse could also be said: if you don't want your comments singled out, don't post them. We are already told, "If you don't want your photograph commented on, don't post it." In essence, we should be as free to discuss the commenting behaviour of photographers as much as we are free to discuss their photos. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 04:00:07 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Louis:
In essence, we should be as free to discuss the commenting behaviour of photographers as much as we are free to discuss their photos. |
Well that certainly would add value to DPC.
Based on forum rules in place, "calling out" commenters is against the rules, and rightly so IMO.
Per Forum Rule #11:
"Do not attack other users. This includes "calling out" specific comments or commenters in a hostile manner. Personal attacks are never appropriate in a constructive discussion. If you disagree with another participant, address their points without attacking them personally. Be aware that others may have differing opinions of a personal attack, so use care when posting. Please note that this includes publicly "calling out" commenters (whether by name or not) in a hostile way." |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 04:07:52 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
In essence, we should be as free to discuss the commenting behaviour of photographers as much as we are free to discuss their photos. |
Well that certainly would add value to DPC.
Based on forum rules in place, "calling out" commenters is against the rules, and rightly so IMO.
Per Forum Rule #11:
"Do not attack other users. This includes "calling out" specific comments or commenters in a hostile manner. Personal attacks are never appropriate in a constructive discussion. If you disagree with another participant, address their points without attacking them personally. Be aware that others may have differing opinions of a personal attack, so use care when posting. Please note that this includes publicly "calling out" commenters (whether by name or not) in a hostile way." |
Cuts both ways though, and rightly so:
You may not:
* offer slanderous, rude, profane or inflammatory comments.
* abuse the anonymous commenting feature in any way.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 04:25:10 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
In essence, we should be as free to discuss the commenting behaviour of photographers as much as we are free to discuss their photos. |
Well that certainly would add value to DPC.
Based on forum rules in place, "calling out" commenters is against the rules, and rightly so IMO.
Per Forum Rule #11:
"Do not attack other users. This includes "calling out" specific comments or commenters in a hostile manner. Personal attacks are never appropriate in a constructive discussion. If you disagree with another participant, address their points without attacking them personally. Be aware that others may have differing opinions of a personal attack, so use care when posting. Please note that this includes publicly "calling out" commenters (whether by name or not) in a hostile way." |
Cuts both ways though, and rightly so:
You may not:
* offer slanderous, rude, profane or inflammatory comments.
* abuse the anonymous commenting feature in any way. |
Yep. And that's why you can report a comment to SC if it's out of line, as was some of the "calling out" in this thread earlier. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 04:39:51 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Based on forum rules in place, "calling out" commenters is against the rules, and rightly so IMO. |
Not necessarily regarding anyone who commented on Alfredo's picture, but if this rule exists to protect people who make worthless comments from having those comments critically analyzed, then it should be abolished. In any event, the rule as you've quoted it does not apply to Alfredo, since he hasn't attacked anyone, nor been unreasonably hostile to the commenters. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 04:42:25 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Based on forum rules in place, "calling out" commenters is against the rules, and rightly so IMO. |
Not necessarily regarding anyone who commented on Alfredo's picture, but if this rule exists to protect people who make worthless comments from having those comments critically analyzed, then it should be abolished. In any event, the rule as you've quoted it does not apply to Alfredo, since he hasn't attacked anyone, nor been unreasonably hostile to the commenters. |
Discussing someone's comment is not "Calling them out". |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 05:15:59 PM · #98 |
Also worth noting:
Originally posted by Forum Rules:
Do not publicly accuse other participants of rules violations. If you believe a rule has been broken, report the post and do not reply.
Assume good faith. When replying to a post, your reply must assume that the original poster's message was intended to be constructive and follow the rules. It's difficult to convey facial expressions or tone of voice over the forums, so a post that appears offensive may be well intentioned. If you cannot assume the original poster acted in good faith, report the post in question, and do not reply at all. |
I see a lot of posts violating these two, on both sides of the issue. Let's please stick to the substance of the issues at hand, without attacking or publicly questioning the motives of the parties involved. Further violations of either of these rules will result in this thread being locked.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2007-10-25 17:16:12.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2007 07:02:29 PM · #99 |
I did post one of the original comments concerning the photo. I can't for the life of me remember my precise wording and now I haven't any way of retrieving it. I was a bit reluctant to post in this thread -being new to the community.
I felt the photo was a bit disturbing, to me personally, and posted a comment to justify my scoring of it - nothing scathing or overly critical.
As a photo ad it is very effective. In that context it works very well. The photos in the anti-abortion ads are also effective - technically sound and conveying a powerful and evocative message - but that does not mean I like the photos as a stand alone element.
I did not view this photo as a public service announcement - that is not what I look for when I participate on DPC. I looked at it for it's technical aspects, it's fittingness for the challenge and perhaps most importantly, (and most difficult to overcome) the feelings I got viewing the image. My idea of art may not be the same as some of the posters in this thread but I was not asked to fit into some mold or parameters when signing up to vote.
It is my understanding that with the varied cultures, ethnicities, sensibilities and talent levels represented on DPC, if you submit a provocative photo you can expect provacative comments to follow. Those comments should not be condemning or personal but on an open register site like DPC i think that might be regrettably unavoidable.
In the end, while i stand by my comment on the photo, I wish i had not made it. If it seemed like a "pile on' and caused someone to remove their submission then I failed to explain my opinion properly. This will make me reluctant to post comments, other than positives, for other submissions in the future. I was unaware that my appreciation of the medium would be evaluated and dismissed based on my personal tastes.
Message edited by author 2007-10-25 19:04:49. |
|
|
|
10/25/2007 07:07:35 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by arm66:
I did post one of the original comments concerning the photo. I can't for the life of me remember my precise wording and now I haven't any way of retrieving it. I was a bit reluctant to post in this thread -being new to the community.
I felt the photo was a bit disturbing, to me personally, and posted a comment to justify my scoring of it - nothing scathing or overly critical.
This will make me reluctant to post comments, other than positives, for other submissions in the future. I was unaware that my appreciation of the medium would be evaluated and dismissed based on my personal tastes. |
This is what has concerned me. |
|
