| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2004 10:17:15 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Thanks a lot for removing my photo. I guess we are not allowed to post photographs at a 'photography' web site. Here's another post you can remove if that is what you need to do to get your kicks. |
You are more than welcome to post photographs to any thread where doing so is directly relevant to the discussion, or to begin a thread asking for comments and critiques of that photograph in "Individual Photograph Discussion." Posting photographs to a thread where they are not relevant is disruptive, and such posts will be removed.
-Terry |
Just to help all of us understand and make it clear what it is that is prohibited; what if a photograph posted is not just a random photograph inserted into the discussion, but a photograph with implied meaning and or a caption that serves as a responce to a specific post? as an example take the following...
someone makes a post saying they like to eat barbequed pork tongue at their favorite chinese restaurant (trust me my girlfriend says it's great)... and in return to their post, becuase I don't think this delicacy sounds very tasty, I post the following picture without any text:
would that be banned as thread jacking?
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 22:17:30.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 10:20:41 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Thanks a lot for removing my photo. I guess we are not allowed to post photographs at a 'photography' web site. Here's another post you can remove if that is what you need to do to get your kicks. |
You are more than welcome to post photographs to any thread where doing so is directly relevant to the discussion, or to begin a thread asking for comments and critiques of that photograph in "Individual Photograph Discussion." Posting photographs to a thread where they are not relevant is disruptive, and such posts will be removed.
-Terry |
Just to help all of us understand and make it clear what it is that is prohibited; what if a photograph posted is not just a random photograph inserted into the discussion, but a photograph with implied meaning and or a caption that serves as a responce to a specific post? as an example take the following...
someone makes a post saying they like to eat barbequed pork tongue at their favorite chinese restaurant (trust me my girlfriend says it's great)... and in return to their post, becuase I don't think this delicacy sounds very tasty, I post the following picture without any text:
would that be banned as thread jacking? |
In this example, this is not threadjacking. It is a direct, relevant response to a post in the thread.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 10:23:16 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Please understand, we are not locking threads just to get rid of them. When locked, a link will be given, when appropriate, to another topic of similar discussion. Hopefully, this will prevent three threads with exactly the same topic matter. So, a topic that is locked isn't completely dead, it is just moved.
It is not a new policy. It is only new in the rant forums. We have always locked and linked duplicate threads in the others. |
Can somebody show me where this policy, as well as the policy of simply deleting people's posts, is clearly spelled out in the terms of service, or any other documentation which is easily and clearly accessible to prospective members before they sign up and pay their membership fee? |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 10:30:31 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Thanks a lot for removing my photo. I guess we are not allowed to post photographs at a 'photography' web site. Here's another post you can remove if that is what you need to do to get your kicks. |
You are more than welcome to post photographs to any thread where doing so is directly relevant to the discussion, or to begin a thread asking for comments and critiques of that photograph in "Individual Photograph Discussion." Posting photographs to a thread where they are not relevant is disruptive, and such posts will be removed.
-Terry |
Just to help all of us understand and make it clear what it is that is prohibited; what if a photograph posted is not just a random photograph inserted into the discussion, but a photograph with implied meaning and or a caption that serves as a responce to a specific post? as an example take the following...
someone makes a post saying they like to eat barbequed pork tongue at their favorite chinese restaurant (trust me my girlfriend says it's great)... and in return to their post, becuase I don't think this delicacy sounds very tasty, I post the following picture without any text:
would that be banned as thread jacking? |
Only if the resident DPC leftist crybabies bitched and whined about it. |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 10:32:10 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by karmat:
Please understand, we are not locking threads just to get rid of them. When locked, a link will be given, when appropriate, to another topic of similar discussion. Hopefully, this will prevent three threads with exactly the same topic matter. So, a topic that is locked isn't completely dead, it is just moved.
It is not a new policy. It is only new in the rant forums. We have always locked and linked duplicate threads in the others. |
Can somebody show me where this policy, as well as the policy of simply deleting people's posts, is clearly spelled out in the terms of service, or any other documentation which is easily and clearly accessible to prospective members before they sign up and pay their membership fee? |
It's in the Terms of Service and while I feel it is unfair, we are indeed paying for a service and not the owners here. This is a private site and if we don;t like it we have the freedom of choice to go elsewhere.
FROM THE DPC TOS: 4.5 DPChallenge.com in its sole discretion, without notice, may remove any Media at any time posted by a Registered User to the Website regardless of the guidelines set forth in this Agreement.
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 22:33:53.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 10:48:54 PM · #31 |
I'm very happy that site council will be monitoring and for the other changes that will be implemented with the political rant forums. For the $25 I paid for membership this was the biggest bargain under the sun and I like the site the way it's run. I have always found site council to be very fair in the past always trying to accomadate all sides in a matter, just as they are doing here with allowing political rants on a photography site, and at the same time trying to appease the people that don't want to see them. I see no reason why anyone has to complain about these changes. I'm left leaning, but I aint no crybaby but some people really need to growup!
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 22:51:23. |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:02:47 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by karmat:
Please understand, we are not locking threads just to get rid of them. When locked, a link will be given, when appropriate, to another topic of similar discussion. Hopefully, this will prevent three threads with exactly the same topic matter. So, a topic that is locked isn't completely dead, it is just moved.
It is not a new policy. It is only new in the rant forums. We have always locked and linked duplicate threads in the others. |
Can somebody show me where this policy, as well as the policy of simply deleting people's posts, is clearly spelled out in the terms of service, or any other documentation which is easily and clearly accessible to prospective members before they sign up and pay their membership fee? |
4.1 Generally, you must use the DPChallenge.com Service in a manner that demonstrates good taste and respect for the rights of DPChallenge.com and third parties.
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that ... (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others.
4.5 DPChallenge.com in its sole discretion, without notice, may remove any Media at any time posted by a Registered User to the Website regardless of the guidelines set forth in this Agreement.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:08:23 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Only if the resident DPC leftist crybabies bitched and whined about it. |
What, it is only the leftist people complaining, oh, I didn't realise that. Obviously their complaints can't be valid then.
Hmmm, the main bitching/whining/crying I see here is from someone crying that they had a post removed that was irrelevant to a thread. I am totally underwhelmed with sympathy.
Good move here on the locking threads approach SC, although the other option being proposed on a specific political rant thread is also not without a lot of merit (personally I could then ignore it but still enjoy the main rant thread).
As for threadjacking *laugh - cool term* way to go!!!
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:09:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Only if the resident DPC leftist crybabies bitched and whined about it. |
Both of these policy were implemented in response to complaints from users on both sides of the political aisle.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 23:11:09.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:12:21 PM · #35 |
| Uhm, don't look now but your thread has apparently been hijacked and is now a rant... |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:27:55 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Wouldn't it be easier to use the existing mechanisms to put in place a 'political' forum that can be ignored, like rant ?
Save the SC time, having to 'police' rant threads, save the blood pressure of the 'I'm being censored' crowd, appease the 'lets post pictures randomly to disrupt things that are getting out of hand' group and only require about 30 minutes of Langdon's attention to manage a growing problem on the site ?
I know this was asked for a few times about 6 months ago, but it seems like you are trying to band-aid the problem, rather than addressing it in a pretty simple way. |
Yes, PLEASE do this....
I come to this site for photography related discussion, NOT political ranting and raving. I think those that want to discuss politics should go to a politically oriented site and discuss it there, but for those who simply must share their point of view on all things political with their fellow photographers, I don't see why they shouldn't be restricted to a section of the forums that is optional viewing for those of us who get our fill of politics elsewhere. |
The vast majority don't have any real knowledge of the subjects they are talking about; and would be laughed at or just ignored in a seriously political forum.
It is only on the non-political sites they are able to spew forth the dogma they have been given while still maintaining the illusion they have actually thought the issues thru to an intellegent conclusion and have developed their opinions on their own.
There are of course exceptions to the above -- but if you took exception to it I am probably referring to you.
There are many good reasons why many sights have banned topics such as politics and religion (and others). In a multi-national and multi-cultural community these topics are guaranteed to be a hot bed of discontent.
David
/edit: clarity
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 23:29:46.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:12:45 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Only if the resident DPC leftist crybabies bitched and whined about it. |
In all fairness (from a rightist crybaby), this is a non-partisan issue. :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:21:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
agree with Gordon - would love a blockable/ignorable political rant section separate from the general rant forum. |
Me too, totally.
I like to have access to rants about life, about photography hiccups and so on but I want nothing to do with political "debates".
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:23:00 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
We would also like to remind everyone that the practice of "threadjacking" is not permitted on DPChallenge. |
Interesting, that it comes after my thread about Avadon.
I had no intention to hijack somebodys thread. It was just, that I didn't notice the other thread about Avedon's death, probably because there was no name in the title. Before I sumbited my thread I look at the lates topics (since it was "hot" news), I didn't see anything, so I put mine.
Anyway. No fuss. Spazmo put the link wich is by far more reasonable.
Keep up good job guys.
/edit: some typos
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 15:25:40. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:23:23 PM · #40 |
| Who do you think would win in a fight - a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses? |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:29:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by rennie:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
We would also like to remind everyone that the practice of "threadjacking" is not permitted on DPChallenge. |
Interesting, that it comes after my thread about Avadon.
I had no intention to hijack somebodys thread. It was just, that I didn't notice the other thread about Avedon's death, probably because there was no name in the title. Before I sumbited my thread I look at the lates topics (since it was "hot" news), I didn't see anything, so I put mine.
Anyway. No fuss. Spazmo put the link wich is by far more reasonable.
Keep up good job guys.
/edit: some tpos |
Rennie I think you misunderstand what threadjacking is.
There are two issues being discussed here.
One is multiple threads on the same topic. This is what it sounds like you did. Sometimes it's because people just don't even do a cursory check to look for an existing thread, but sometimes it's just an accident, as in your example, where you had a look but didn't identify the relevant thread. No huge deal, no big drama, SC will simply close your thread and direct viewers to the existing thread.
The second issue is threadjacking. That's where a thread exists about a certain topic and someone (who either doesn't like the topic, doesn't agree with the opinions posted or maybe just doesn't like the people posting) deliberately tries to hijack the thread by posting irrelevant material in it, either photos or text. For example, there could be a thread about a recent speech by a politician and someone might just decide they don't like it and start posting photos of their dog there to try and subvert the thread. SC are dealing with this problem by removing the threadjacker's posts.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:43:27 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Rennie I think you misunderstand what threadjacking is.
|
I obviuosly did. Thank you for explaining :)
The other thread was in a different category probably. I checked only "General Discussion".
At least now I've learned exactly what "hijacking" is :)
/edit: I meant "threadhijacking" of course. This English language ;)
Greetings
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 15:44:26. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:44:09 PM · #43 |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:24:06 PM · #44 |
| Bump for those of us who need a reminder. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:14:18 PM · #45 |
Question on thread-jacking.
The random photos were considered thread jacking and were deteted accordingly. That's understandable. However, how come posts that blatantly have no relation to the topic of the thread are not deleted? (I can provide examples if needed)
Question on personal attacks.
SC has no problem removing the random photos posted in threads, yet very little is done about the personal attacks that go on in the threads. In my opinion, the amount of personal attacks has been going up lately. Shouldn't posts with blatant personal attacks be deleted and the author given a warning? Currently SC simply asks them to stop. When they continue, SC asks them to stop again. Thus, random photos are not tolerated and deleted when posted, yet personal attacks are left to stand for everyone to read with nothing more then a "please stop" from SC. Obviously the "please stop" method is not working because they continue. (Again, I can post examples if needed)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:17:23 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Question on personal attacks.
SC has no problem removing the random photos posted in threads, yet very little is done about the personal attacks that go on in the threads. In my opinion, the amount of personal attacks has been going up lately. Shouldn't posts with blatant personal attacks be deleted and the author given a warning? Currently SC simply asks them to stop. When they continue, SC asks them to stop again. Thus, random photos are not tolerated and deleted when posted, yet personal attacks are left to stand for everyone to read with nothing more then a "please stop" from SC. Obviously the "please stop" method is not working because they continue. (Again, I can post examples if needed) |
Indeed/agreed and ditto.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 14:17:45. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:20:01 PM · #47 |
It's not true that no further action is being taken. You may not see the action; when we see such a post we do remove it. You would not see private communication between SC and the offender.
We tend to be a little more liberal in the Rant Forum, though there have been multiple removals recently in there. If you see posts that you feel are blatant personal attacks or are clearly offensive, please do bring them to our attention; we appreciate the help, as we cannot be everywhere.
As regards the random photos, they were...
1.) Deliberate attempts to derail the thread, not innocent OT comments or questions
2.) Misuse of other people's photos.
Hope that clarifies the issue. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:21:43 PM · #48 |
Is most of this stuff (personal attacks) going on in the rant forums? I'm not seeing a whole lot of it out here in the 'real' world...
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 14:22:02.
|
|
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: 08/29/2025 06:33:24 AM EDT.
