| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2002 06:57:30 PM · #26 |
Some people probably need thumping but I wouldn't use a Bible to do it.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 07:31:58 PM · #27 |
This is just a suggestion but isn't there any way that you could have anonymous moderators? It only seems that it makes things worse if some folks know who they are by their title. Not that I have a problem with any moderation or the people chosen, but putting their title under their names..no matter what you call them...seems that it will only make them take more abuse.
And I know this may be a lot of extra work for everyone involved but isn't there any way to actually screen the posts before they are added to the forums? I know..I know that's probably a stupid idea and I don't really know that much about computers....but are there programs what will automatically delete a post if certain rules are violated? Do I seem to be going to the extreme with this? Tell me what you guys think.
Karen |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 07:52:02 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by KDJohnson:
This is just a suggestion but isn't there any way that you could have anonymous moderators? It only seems that it makes things worse if some folks know who they are by their title. Not that I have a problem with any moderation or the people chosen, but putting their title under their names..no matter what you call them...seems that it will only make them take more abuse.
And I know this may be a lot of extra work for everyone involved but isn't there any way to actually screen the posts before they are added to the forums? I know..I know that's probably a stupid idea and I don't really know that much about computers....but are there programs what will automatically delete a post if certain rules are violated? Do I seem to be going to the extreme with this? Tell me what you guys think.
You can auto-delete posts with certain words, but other than swear words (which don't bother me personally) how can you be sure of the context a word?
For example, if someone posted about a photo: "You must be a moron to take such a hideous photo. Idiots like you should only use disposable cameras." I would call that a personal attack and would have no problem with having that deleted.
But all the same "bad" words could be used without an attack in a different post: "I am such a moron. I forgot to bring my tripod on my last shoot, and the results were hideous. I won't be such an idiot next time."
Or you can attack people with polite words: "You really have no skill whatsoever as a photographer. It's hopeless for you. You should consider something more your level - like finger painting."
Without having a person read those three posts, I see no ways to weed out the first and last posts.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:08:05 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
You can auto-delete posts with certain words, but other than swear words (which don't bother me personally) how can you be sure of the context a word?
For example, if someone posted about a photo: "You must be a moron to take such a hideous photo. Idiots like you should only use disposable cameras." I would call that a personal attack and would have no problem with having that deleted.
But all the same "bad" words could be used without an attack in a different post: "I am such a moron. I forgot to bring my tripod on my last shoot, and the results were hideous. I won't be such an idiot next time."
Or you can attack people with polite words: "You really have no skill whatsoever as a photographer. It's hopeless for you. You should consider something more your level - like finger painting."
Without having a person read those three posts, I see no ways to weed out the first and last posts.
Of course..you're right about that....but what about the anonimity of the moderators? Do you think that may help? Personally..nothing in here has really bothered me to the point where I stress about it after I leave the site. I mean..it's just a forum and if you've ever posted in any forum on the web...you pretty much know there are morons and idiots and just lots of people with different opinions than yours. I don't really think there is any good solution.
just MY opinion....lol
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:21:50 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by KDJohnson:
[i....but what about the anonimity of the moderators? Do you think that may help? [/i]
i do. please see earlier in this thread : ) . . . :
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
maybe we shouldn''t have a ''title'' at all?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:29:43 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by KDJohnson:
I mean..it''s just a forum and if you''ve ever posted in any forum on the web...you pretty much know there are morons and idiots and just lots of people with different opinions than yours. I don''t really think there is any good solution.
I think anyone with the skill to find and post to a forum such as this is probably neither a moron nor an idiot, but for some reason may choose to act like one...
Since the purpose of this site is ostensibly photography, any remarks directed towards anyone''s personality or lineage are not germane and can only be for the purpose of controlling people''s time and thoughts with other issues. We all agreed to certain conditions when we signed on here, and our participation is a priviledge not a right.
I am 100% for free speech -- when it doesn''t negate the rights of others. I don''t want to have to avoid the forums, just to avoid reading verbal spats. Since I don''t want anyone censoring my posts either, I suggest we all just re-read the site guidelines and act sensibly (not necessarily like "adults" -- look where that''s gotten the world). I think Will Smith''s guideline is about right -- he decided he wouldn''t record any song he''d be embarrassed to play for his grandma. Just pretend that''s your grandma''s photo you''re about to rip, and see if you can''t say it in a way which won''t get you disinherited.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/8/2002 9:30:01 PM. |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 09:57:16 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think anyone with the skill to find and post to a forum such as this is probably neither a moron nor an idiot, but for some reason may choose to act like one...
Since the purpose of this site is ostensibly photography, any remarks directed towards anyone''s personality or lineage are not germane and can only be for the purpose of controlling people''s time and thoughts with other issues. We all agreed to certain conditions when we signed on here, and our participation is a priviledge not a right.
I am 100% for free speech -- when it doesn''t negate the rights of others. I don''t want to have to avoid the forums, just to avoid reading verbal spats. Since I don''t want anyone censoring my posts either, I suggest we all just re-read the site guidelines and act sensibly (not necessarily like "adults" -- look where that''s gotten the world). I think Will Smith''s guideline is about right -- he decided he wouldn''t record any song he''d be embarrassed to play for his grandma. Just pretend that''s your grandma''s photo you''re about to rip, and see if you can''t say it in a way which won''t get you disinherited
I agree with that as well.
And while I wasn't intentionally calling anyone an "idiot" or "moron" who comes to this forum...I do believe that there are people out there whose soul purpose in life is to try and make everyone as miserable as they are, just as you say... "remarks directed towards anyone's personality or lineage are not germane and can only be for the purpose of controlling people's time and thoughts with other issues."
Having said that....if we choose to ignore them, we'll be much better off. I've gotten a lot of excellent advice on this site and I come here to learn. The tutorials and links to other learning sites are excellent and I've learned some things that I never knew (even as a graphic designer using PhotoShop everyday). I'm glad that someone directed me to this site...and I, in turn...have tried to direct others here as well.
Thanks... |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 10:40:52 PM · #33 |
I've run a number of computer bulletin boards which were the predecessor of the internet message forums like this. The question of how to manage messages was a constant headache.
The obvious solution is for other users to just ignore the childish, argumentative messages, as has been suggested before. But, as we have seen, that doesn't happen.
My suggestion is to let the message standards be posted publicly and let it be known that violation won't be tolerated. Then just delete messages that violate the standards and all replies to them.
The people posting messages to start the arguments aren't the users you want participating anyway.
If a given user insists on posting messages which are unacceptable, remove their ability to post messages.
I know this seems heavy handed, but frankly, the people who own/run this site have the right to manage it as they see fit for the benefit of their target audience. The troublemakers have no right to start anything and the owners/managers of the site have no reason or obligation at all to welcome them or put up with them. It's the same as letting someone into your home. Not everyone has to be let in or welcomed or allowed to stay.
It's not foolproof, but it's manageable. Determined troublemakers will log back on with a new userid and post more unacceptable messages.
The only real way to STOP the nuisance postings is for all messages from new users to be reviewed by the moderator before they are seen by the public. Once a user is known to the moderator as someone who won't cause trouble, they can be given the ability to post directly, without being subject to screening beforehand.
That's a big burden to put on the moderators and it slows down the exchange of ideas, but it works. All of this also ignores the fact that it has to be designed into the code for the site, which is not a trivial issue.
That's my 2 cents worth. The opinions expressed herein are not necesarily those of the management. This offer void in states where prohibited by law. Your mileage may vary. ;)
Oh... and the other question in another discussion... A good alternative to "Moderator" is "Host." A host has the responsility to welcome new users, interract with users, and keep things from getting out of hand. It sounds more friendly, less dictatorial than Moderator to many people too.
I'm pretty new to this site but I think the Dudes In Charge are doing a great job and I appreciate them allowing me into their site.
Mark |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 11:55:39 PM · #34 |
Iggy,
I used to run a BBS as well... PCBoard 14 and another system called GTPower... I agree with your comments... We used to not let new users post to all the forums, especially the netmail and FIDOnet stuff until we knew who they were...
Their first offense got them kicked offline...
The BBS was not a forum for free speech... We were not restricting anyone's right to free speech, we just did not allow it in our forums...
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:39:31 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by KDJohnson:
Of course..you're right about that....but what about the anonimity of the moderators? Do you think that may help?
I don't care one way or the other. The best reason to let them be anonymous is to protect them from harassment.
OTOH, when you have anonymous moderators, there is the impression (often fostered by people who like to stir up trouble) that they are this secret force of people who like removing posts for the heck of it. Being able to see that the moderators are people who are generally respected by most people on the site helps people chill out when it is one of their posts that gets pulled.
I agree with what other people have stated that this is Drew and Langdon's site, and they can make whatever rules they like, but it's mostly about balance. If you let people behave in a way that annoys enough other people, many of those other people will leave. If you make things too restrictive, people will leave. Somewhere in the middle is the optimum level.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:55:37 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
I agree with what other people have stated that this is Drew and Langdon''s site, and they can make whatever rules they like, but it''s mostly about balance.
I really hope you guys don''t think that any decision on this site has been anything but for the benefit of site users. The rules we''ve made and edited over the past several months have all been for the benefit of the site users, most of them directly stemming from the requests of the site users. We''ve had almost 9,000 posts to these forums since the site began in January. I''d bet there have been 5 posts edited for content, all from the same 2 users. We''re definitely listening, though. Thanks to all who have spoken up with their opinions on the matter.
Drew
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/9/2002 12:55:34 AM. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:59:14 AM · #37 |
Well, after reading all the opinions here, I really think the idea I started with of one open, unmoderated forum with the rest strictly controlled would be a good one. It's a compromise that I think would work here.
I have a personal interest in this because last year on a mailing list I ended up being classed as a 'problem subscriber' for getting involved in some arguments about evolution (I believe... they never told me the reason). I'm never rude, I don't swear in places I wouldn't expect it to go down well, I don't judge people, but I do end up in those kinds of discussions. It was on a 'discussion' version of the main mailing list (for CG character animation), so it wasn't even against the rules. But from then on, all my emails to the list had to sit in some moderator's inbox before they were screened and forwarded to the list, and if I did anything like a one-line reply, which is frowned on, it would be rejected. No one told me this was happening either, I just found my emails to the main list were taking up to 24 hours to be posted (the moderator was in a different timezone to me) and then one was rejected.
I really, really, really don't want that kind of thing to happen here. That list doesn't exist anymore, it was converted to a forum where the rules are looser, there don't really appear to be any trolls, and if discussions are inappropriate for the main forum they're just moved to the discussion forum. It works well. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:07:04 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
I really hope you guys don''t think that any decision on this site has been anything but for the benefit of site users. The rules we''ve made and edited over the past several months have all been for the benefit of the site users, most of them directly stemming from the requests of the site users. We''ve had almost 9,000 posts to these forums since the site began in January. I''d bet there have been 5 posts edited for content, all from the same 2 users. We''re definitely listening, though. Thanks to all who have spoken up with their opinions on the matter.
No, what I was trying to say with my remark about balance was that you and Langdon have the right to be dictatorial (since you own the site) but that wasn't what I thought was going on. I thought it was more about trying to achieve balance between "anything goes" and "we will tell you what to think". Neither state is desirable, but finding that middle ground takes a bit of trial and error. It's the same as the rules for photo alterations, which get tweaked from time to time in the search for an optimum solution. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:20:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Well, after reading all the opinions here, I really think the idea I started with of one open, unmoderated forum with the rest strictly controlled would be a good one. It's a compromise that I think would work here.
This isn't a bad idea.
I have a personal interest in this because last year on a mailing list I ended up being classed as a 'problem subscriber' for getting involved in some arguments about evolution (I believe... they never told me the reason). I'm never rude, I don't swear in places I wouldn't expect it to go down well, I don't judge people, but I do end up in those kinds of discussions. It was on a 'discussion' version of the main mailing list (for CG character animation), so it wasn't even against the rules. But from then on, all my emails to the list had to sit in some moderator's inbox before they were screened and forwarded to the list, and if I did anything like a one-line reply, which is frowned on, it would be rejected. No one told me this was happening either, I just found my emails to the main list were taking up to 24 hours to be posted (the moderator was in a different timezone to me) and then one was rejected.
This is just wrong. IMHO, no one should have to wonder why they are considered a "problem", and no one should have a post pulled (or delayed) for respectfully disagreeing with anyone. I can see why you feel the way you do coming from that kind of experience. I would hate to see anyone here treated that way.
The moderated boards I frequent elsewhere are not like that. People who have a post pulled are notified by email as to why their post was pulled. People who cause enough trouble can be banned from the boards for a while, but they are told why. It doesn't happen that often, and I've never requested anything be pulled other than spam.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:25:49 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
The moderated boards I frequent elsewhere are not like that. People who have a post pulled are notified by email as to why their post was pulled. People who cause enough trouble can be banned from the boards for a while, but they are told why. It doesn't happen that often, and I've never requested anything be pulled other than spam.
Are you referring to The Motley Fool, by any chance?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:43:37 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Are you referring to The Motley Fool, by any chance?
That's one of them. I see you've got the same nickname in both places, too. Small world. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:48:14 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
[i]Are you referring to The Motley Fool, by any chance?
That's one of them. I see you've got the same nickname in both places, too. Small world. ;-)
[/i]
I use that screen name pretty much everywhere. And, from what I've heard, certain TMF's gets lax from time to time in letting people know why they were suspended.
Of course, now I'm at a disadvantage. You know how to find me on TMF, and I can't find you!
Oh well, you can probably guess my AIM screenname.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 02:11:33 AM · #43 |
Well, I hang out at Half Empty, where I know manic, reuben and jonr and some others who are either voters here or have just started submitting or are thinking about it. DPChallenge fever has slowly gripped that place, although some wish the photo talk in the chatterbox there would stop :). And don't worry, we don't all vote each other's photos up... at least not too much :P
All the posts there are rated by the users, using a plus, neutral or minus button, and that then establishes how much "radiance" users have. That system is actually really good at keeping trolls out of the site, but not harming people who are just a bit unruly or weird. That is... as long as they don't take the concept of radiance too seriously. The unfortunate thing about people is that they do take that concept too seriously, and often just leave with a bruised ego because their radiance went down after a little flamewar or their ideas are rated too low, or whatever. Anyone who wanders into the chatterbox, where a bunch of us all chat in real time, and makes friends with us will stay around and not care about the other parts of the site too much, but that's just a small, closeknit group of people.... in other words the site is cliqueish and isn't likely to expand much. The site's creator is working on a new system with no rating because he thinks it just sucks. A complex discussion board only leads to complex metadiscussions about the discussion board, and accusations that this person is a troll rater or that person is a radiance whore or that group of guys all from the same school in Florida are ganging up on everyone else and silently taking over (well, that was all true, but they're bored with that now :P)
Keep this place open and welcoming and the site will grow. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 02:35:04 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by lisae:
All the posts there are rated by the users, using a plus, neutral or minus button, and that then establishes how much "radiance" users have. That system is actually really good at keeping trolls out of the site, but not harming people who are just a bit unruly or weird. That is... as long as they don't take the concept of radiance too seriously. The unfortunate thing about people is that they do take that concept too seriously, and often just leave with a bruised ego because their radiance went down after a little flamewar or their ideas are rated too low, or whatever. Anyone who wanders into the chatterbox, where a bunch of us all chat in real time, and makes friends with us will stay around and not care about the other parts of the site too much, but that's just a small, closeknit group of people.... in other words the site is cliqueish and isn't likely to expand much. The site's creator is working on a new system with no rating because he thinks it just sucks.
People at The Motley Fool do something similar with the use of a "Recommendation" button. (There is no "neutral" or "negative" in the system there.) It's kind of nice in that it cuts down on the number of "I agree." posts. People simply "Rec" a post instead. Unfortunately, the Powers That Be have decided that "Recommendations" are only for "high quality" posts that they can use to show why people should now pay money to use the site, so the owners and a bunch of the posters are at odds.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 02:58:25 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
People at The Motley Fool ... now pay money to use the site, so the owners and a bunch of the posters are at odds.
Gee, I think I signed up at TMF, but I don''t think I''ve ever really used it since I have no money to invest right now...I''ll have to see if I signed up with the same handle...
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/9/2002 3:05:55 AM. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 03:05:44 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Well, I hang out at Half Empty...
You HAD to include the link, didn't you? With so much interesting stuff over there, how will I have time to vote on all the pictures now?
Seriously, thanks for the link. Although I've used computers since the early 80s I never got into any of the BBSs or stuff before...I suppose I'll cruise on by there and sign up tomorrow... |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 09:28:02 AM · #47 |
I was going to say something last night about this discussion but I got called away for something more important, my life. Which brings me to ths point I was going to make. We as moderators are not sitting at our computers in shifts combing the forums for every little rule violation so we can use our edit button. That is not our primary purpose here. As for the idea for us to review each post to the forum before it is posted, unless someone wants to pay my salary and insurance I won't be doing that.
We are all individuals no better and really no different from the rest of the members. If things get dull for some members it is not totally our obligation to breath life into the discussions. This site has thrived because the members as a whole have given their ideas and Drew and Langdon listened. They, just like us cannot monitor every little thing that happens so if something needs to be brought to their attention, it is up to us moderators, hosts, narcs, fascists (whatever you want to call us, I don't care)to bring it to the administrators and moderators for further discussion.
I do not feel that being anonymous is better. If we are anonymous, then we become this nameless and sometimes hated group that no one likes. It would bring about more discussions that have nothing whatsoever to do with photography.
Lisae, I am sorry you have had some bad experiences for speaking your opinion. That is not our objective here at all. I am very much a believer in free speech. Ya'll can get into as many debates and mild arguments as you want. I just don't believe anyone should have to put up with being called a stupid MF.
In conclusion (I sincerely hope), this horse got beat to death a couple of days ago. Can we put this much effort into interesting disscussions about photography techniques? I certainly hope so. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:51:41 PM · #48 |
the only thing that is evil is that there is a core group of resident
trolls on site who exploit a paralysis of the site caused by playing
2 groups off against each other: the 'old farts who so badly
want to convince themselves that they're hip and open-minded
so they embrace and defend the so-called rights of what are
obviously emotionally dysfuctional, alienated, trailer-trash
who don't even have any interest in talking about art of
photography, but are clearly here only because they personally
know the site admins, and have discovered that messing around
here is like shooting fish in a barrel, esp because no matter
what they do, they can just hide behind the skirts of one of
the aforementioned Defenders' off against a) the people who
have actually seen the work of true, brilliant, and even
deranged artistes and aren't so easily 'impressed'/won over
by some random midwestern american teenagers who torture
small animals to fill the void in their pathetic lives,
and b) people who are closer to their age and culture,
and therefore easily realize that all they are doing are
regurgitating some of the more recent edgier cultural
cliches sans total originality, but are appalled,
again, when aforementioned group of Defenders holds
up this derivative (ie eminem, david lynch)
from said trolls as a Shining Example of A Pure and
Undistilled Genius that Must be Nurtured.'
puh-leeze ... y'all are pathetic. ban the twerps and
get on with the real reason yer supposedly here:
photography. ban me too, if ya must, for telling
it like it really is, but again: get on with the
real reason yer supposedly here: photography.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 02:15:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by mikeflowers:
puh-leeze ... y'all are pathetic. ban the twerps and
get on with the real reason yer supposedly here:
photography. ban me too, if ya must, for telling
it like it really is, but again: get on with the
real reason yer supposedly here: photography.
Like YOU think it is...:-)
I don't disagree that there are elements of everything you said going on here. I don't give a shite about being hip or "with it". I defend only people rights to be assholes..their right to be an asshole ends when they keep me from being able to be an asshole!
They don't spam, they have an occasional personal attack that needs to be looked at and whether they are pretending to be angst ridden and overlooked twentysomethings or really are angst ridden, overlooked twentysomethings I don't know, don't care, next please.
As a matter of fact..nobody here knows me well enough to know I didn't torture small animals and eat my neighbors :-) |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 02:26:07 PM · #50 |
it is really alot more about how people would rather rip their moderator buddies
a new one, rather than turn on their poor protected 'tortured darlings.'
|
|
