| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2012 05:50:44 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
The fire is turning to embers as this next chapter of DPC Drama comes softly to a close. After reading this thread and following other threads where offenses took place and people were attacked and others joined the party, the thing that is missing most from these events is grace, humility and forgiveness.
Grace, undeserved favor. Despite our best attempts at tact and diplomacy we often offend others with our speech.nWhen someone feels they have been offended by another it is wholly appropriate for the offended party to go to the offender and bring the issue up. What is the response of the offender to the offended party? Grace. "I'm sorry I have offended you, will you forgive me?" That very act can serve to extinguish the spark of offense.
Humility. How easy it is to act out in selfish pride and demand our right to speak freely. How hard it is to consider others more than ourselves and temper our speech in favor of peace. Pride comes before the fall. The humble will be lifted up.
Forgiveness. The act of denying your right to execute justice. When the offending party practices grace the right response by the offended party is forgiveness. "Thank you for acknowledging that your words felt hurtful to me. I no longer see this incident in the same way and I won't pursue the matter any further. I forgive you."
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... Let your good spirit be evident to all! |
Lovely post. |
+1 - Thank you, Ed! |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 05:54:21 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
The fire is turning to embers as this next chapter of DPC Drama comes softly to a close. After reading this thread and following other threads where offenses took place and people were attacked and others joined the party, the thing that is missing most from these events is grace, humility and forgiveness.
Grace, undeserved favor. Despite our best attempts at tact and diplomacy we often offend others with our speech.nWhen someone feels they have been offended by another it is wholly appropriate for the offended party to go to the offender and bring the issue up. What is the response of the offender to the offended party? Grace. "I'm sorry I have offended you, will you forgive me?" That very act can serve to extinguish the spark of offense.
Humility. How easy it is to act out in selfish pride and demand our right to speak freely. How hard it is to consider others more than ourselves and temper our speech in favor of peace. Pride comes before the fall. The humble will be lifted up.
Forgiveness. The act of denying your right to execute justice. When the offending party practices grace the right response by the offended party is forgiveness. "Thank you for acknowledging that your words felt hurtful to me. I no longer see this incident in the same way and I won't pursue the matter any further. I forgive you."
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... Let your good spirit be evident to all! |
Lovely post. |
*sigh*
It is a lovely post. But unfortunately, there have been many peacekeepers who have been inadvertently shot in this process. You'll notice that many of the peace keepers (not all), have been keeping quiet. Over the past number of months things have been escalating, and the peacekeepers have been falling by the wayside. Sometimes you can only get beaten up so many times. Peace requires grace, humility, and forgiveness on both sides.
I find this all incredibly sad.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:00:02 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by jagar:
She'll delete that comment now like all her other outbursts and continue saying she's being attacked, incredible. I wonder what she's got planned for me. |
Dunno, but I bet it involves whipped cream, you fortuitous jerk. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:08:30 PM · #129 |
 This thread has the record for the most edited posts. In another day or so, it will be a completely different thread and nobody will be able to make any sense of it.
eta: Nothing. I just want people to think I originally said something really controversial.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 18:09:17. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:10:02 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread has the record for the most edited posts. In another day or so, it will be a completely different thread and nobody will be able to make any sense of it.
eta: Nothing. I just want people to think I originally said something really controversial. |
Who wants to bet it ends in a discussion about the pronunciation of Nikon? |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:14:24 PM · #131 |
On a serious note, I miss Paul and believed him to be a huge asset to the community. That said, I also see the irony re: thick skin.
I also find it ironic that I have never been asked to edit my comments, but Paul and Bear have. Hahahahaaaaaahaaaaa. :) |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:23:20 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
On a serious note, Paul can be a huge ass to the community. That said, I also see the irony re: slick skin.
I also find it ironic that I have never been asked to butt Paul and Bear. Hahahahaaaaaahaaaaa. :) |
Nice edit. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 06:26:30 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
In general, if someone were to be reprimanded I would have assumed that more than one SC member would be involved in the decision. I believe that's the case with DQ, yes? |
You are right -- if we thought that something more than an edit or verbal warning about leaving inappropriate comments was warranted, we'd would canvas options with other SC members and come up with an appropriate response. But, all that canvassing occurs AFTER we deal with the comment itself -- ie. hide or edit. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 07:11:37 PM · #134 |
I guess the thickness of one's skin is an issue of prime consideration when dealing with other members.
I well recall being called a "Queer" a while back and a "Bigot" not all that long ago, comments that could get one's dander up.
Personally, I strive to remember that, notwithstanding the fact that discussions can get sometimes get heated, we are not dealing with confrontations where anyone will suffer any physical harm.
Ubique and I most certainly have had our differences of opinions, but one trait that I truly admired about him was the fact that he was honest.
Not unlike many others, I too will miss him.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 19:40:08. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 07:26:16 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by frisca:
if we thought that something more than an edit or verbal warning about leaving inappropriate comments was warranted, we'd would canvas options with other SC members and come up with an appropriate response. |
I note that nothing from the 4 current and 1 former SC members responding to these threads (nor several others behind the scenes) suggests that more council opinions would have led to a different course of action. Whether or not we personally felt the comment was out of line or against the rules, it is not unreasonable to see how it might be taken as a personal jab referring to past history even if that was not the intent. That someone would be offended by being asked to edit a comment is a new wrinkle. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 07:47:38 PM · #136 |
I dont understand why there is so much damage control going on with the SC. This thread is evidence enough there is a structural problem. I have sent a ticket requesting a consideration in the lines of this (so far unanswered)
So the job now is not to engage with the personalities but address the structural issue of how the SC deals with moderating all users who participate. This is probably an incremental process but as a starting point I would prefer that more than one SC member moderate deliberate in the event of a lodged complaint, and have a transparent SC complaint forum so if someone was to lodge a complaint it is available to viewing like all other forums. Any ideas?
Margaret and Paul are neither to blame, everyone is just being themselves, nothing will change that, but they opened up one of the cracks in the SC that is often lamented and ignored.
To avoid uninformed heresay, will the SC publish, here, the complete original dialogue between Paul and the SC in regard to this matter. At least people can begin to address this issue without their own personal baggage. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 07:48:11 PM · #137 |
| I never understand why people get so up in arms when someone "leaves" dpc. The majority of the times it happens, the "leaver" usually creates a post in a thinly veiled attempt to get some attention (imo) and get the obligatory chorus of "oh, don't leave, I love your work" etc etc. However, when someone asks to have their account closed and notifies no one or just a few by pm, it seems like a decision that a grown up person made, and as noted by Scalvert, could be reversed any time he wants. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:03:20 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by daisydavid:
I dont understand why there is so much damage control going on with the SC. This thread is evidence enough there is a structural problem. |
A member posts something, another member submits a complaint. SC asks "could you please edit this because ...", to which the member can so either "OK" or "No, because ..." and we proceed from there. I don't see a structural problem with that.
If someone chooses to forego either editing the comment or arguing why it should be retained as-is, but instead decides to leave, well, we cannot either anticipate or prevent that -- it is outside the bounds of reasonable responses. Even an ultimatum of "Either the comment stands as-is or I'm leaving" might have been understandable, but to just (pardon the expression) throw a hissy fit and storm off is feeling less and less reasonable to me all the time ... |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:06:05 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
I never understand why people get so up in arms when someone "leaves" dpc. The majority of the times it happens, the "leaver" usually creates a post in a thinly veiled attempt to get some attention (imo) and get the obligatory chorus of "oh, don't leave, I love your work" etc etc. However, when someone asks to have their account closed and notifies no one or just a few by pm, it seems like a decision that a grown up person made, and as noted by Scalvert, could be reversed any time he wants. |
Because we are concerned with why they left. Some here feel there is a problem with the process. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:08:43 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by daisydavid:
I dont understand why there is so much damage control going on with the SC. This thread is evidence enough there is a structural problem. |
A member posts something, another member submits a complaint. SC asks "could you please edit this because ...", to which the member can so either "OK" or "No, because ..." and we proceed from there. I don't see a structural problem with that.
If someone chooses to forego either editing the comment or arguing why it should be retained as-is, but instead decides to leave, well, we cannot either anticipate or prevent that -- it is outside the bounds of reasonable responses. Even an ultimatum of "Either the comment stands as-is or I'm leaving" might have been understandable, but to just (pardon the expression) throw a hissy fit and storm off is feeling less and less reasonable to me all the time ... |
What happened to my request to see the dialogue? |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:13:44 PM · #141 |
i think it's been displayed several times here.
SC: "we got a complaint, please adjust your comment to remove remarks not directed at the photo, but at the photographer"
U: "quit" |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:28:37 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frisca:
if we thought that something more than an edit or verbal warning about leaving inappropriate comments was warranted, we'd would canvas options with other SC members and come up with an appropriate response. |
I note that nothing from the 4 current and 1 former SC members responding to these threads (nor several others behind the scenes) suggests that more council opinions would have led to a different course of action. Whether or not we personally felt the comment was out of line or against the rules, it is not unreasonable to see how it might be taken as a personal jab referring to past history even if that was not the intent. That someone would be offended by being asked to edit a comment is a new wrinkle. |
Four Site Council members have responded to this thread (and one retired). Perhaps the person who made the initial decision might want to also respond? Not a request. Just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:29:11 PM · #143 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:29:23 PM · #144 |
Ni-kon
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 20:29:33. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 08:37:32 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
i think it's been displayed several times here.
SC: "we got a complaint, please adjust your comment to remove remarks not directed at the photo, but at the photographer"
U: "quit" |
The full correspondence hasn't been displayed, so until it does, you're all guessing. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:05:00 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
I never understand why people get so up in arms when someone "leaves" dpc. The majority of the times it happens, the "leaver" usually creates a post in a thinly veiled attempt to get some attention (imo) and get the obligatory chorus of "oh, don't leave, I love your work" etc etc. However, when someone asks to have their account closed and notifies no one or just a few by pm, it seems like a decision that a grown up person made, and as noted by Scalvert, could be reversed any time he wants. |
+1 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:11:39 PM · #147 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:12:50 PM · #148 |
Well, the original purpose of this thread was to highlight Paul's work until he made that decision...or not.
Feel free to post along that vein.
Thank you.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 21:14:00. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:24:15 PM · #149 |
I've seen the message from SC and it said to edit the comment or it would be deleted. Unless someone else is lying to me, then SC is misrepresenting the tone of their message... and I think that's the issue here. Tone. If you're really in the business of social facilitation, and not censorship, then you should work on your tone.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:28:51 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Originally posted by smardaz:
I never understand why people get so up in arms when someone "leaves" dpc. The majority of the times it happens, the "leaver" usually creates a post in a thinly veiled attempt to get some attention (imo) and get the obligatory chorus of "oh, don't leave, I love your work" etc etc. However, when someone asks to have their account closed and notifies no one or just a few by pm, it seems like a decision that a grown up person made, and as noted by Scalvert, could be reversed any time he wants. |
+1 |
It's about the PROCESS not the PERSONALITIES. To have a fair and clear idea about what I see as the problem and work towards a group solution, you have to took at the FACTS as they happened to provide the EVIDENCE, some believe the PROCESS is in need of DISCUSSION. The whole thing somehow reminds me of A Bright Shining Lie by John Paul Vann. How many more good people on both sides of this issue are worth sacrificing because it's easier not to consider change. Paul and Margaret, and others, are talents we want to keep and foster. Personalities are what you put up with (check your family tree), just as you would tolerate the personalities of Dali, Picasso and Van Gogh. |
|
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: 08/04/2025 10:17:58 AM EDT.
This thread has the record for the most edited posts. In another day or so, it will be a completely different thread and nobody will be able to make any sense of it.
