| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2012 09:27:15 AM · #26 |
| Could someone from SC please answer some concerns expressed here in this thread that Paul was forced to remove/change his comment? |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:28:44 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I'm hoping someone from SC will offer an explanation. |
The sooner the better. Did the SC act as a whole in this matter? Was there a consensus among them on how to deal with the "offending" comment? Was there even a group discussion? Or was it (mis)handled hastily by a single person? These are my questions.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:29:17 AM · #28 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:30:53 AM · #29 |
| Not liking the style of someone's work is hardly a personal attack. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:34:57 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Not liking the style of someone's work is hardly a personal attack. |
Yeah it is.
I've reported everyone who's given me crappy votes or comments on all my images. Why do you hate me? You're making me out to be a monster.
All kidding aside, this is tantamount to what happened with ubique. He presented honest criticism and someone on SC thought it warranted to be modified. He did and left while doing so. Then Margaret has the audacity to openly boast about how she can flex her muscles.
CS |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:35:57 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Here is a recent comment from Ubique.
Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture. It's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. Thus of course its popular acclaim, which you recently made very plain was your goal with your DPC entries. So while I reckon any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination, I do sincerely congratulate you on so resoundingly achieving your objective. |
Wow, what an awesome comment!!!
I would LOVE to receive comments like that. One of the reason I have done very little on DPC in the past few years is precisely the lack of really in-depth discussion of specific photographs and strong learning experiences.
I'm not a very good photographer, but I love learning stuff.
The idea that he was asked to change a comment by a user doesn't surprise me. However, the idea that he might have been asked to change a comment like that by the SC is pure folly to me. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:37:03 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jagar:
The original comment I believe was very fare and true and if I'd been able to put it so skillfully in to words like Paul, I might have done so. If we cannot accept decent and honnest critique on a photo without running to SC to complain about personnel attacks, then we shouldn't enter a challenge at all. I shoot some pretty lame non artistic shots sometimes and yes they do score better mostly, I've actually got a couple in like that right now, if I were to get a similar comment on them, it would make me laugh because It would be so true. |
It was not about criticism of the photo, but the thinly veiled attacks on the photographer. The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine, and we offered him the chance to edit the comment rather than hide it outright. The validity or dissenting opinion of the critique was not an issue. There's more going on here than the surface story, and it needn't be a matter of public debate. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:39:51 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It was not about criticism of the photo, but the thinly veiled attacks on the photographer. The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine, and we offered him the chance to edit the comment rather than hide it outright. The validity or dissenting opinion of the critique was not an issue. There's more going on here than the surface story, and it needn't be a matter of public debate. |
The only thing thin here is someone's skin.
CS |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:40:37 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jagar:
The original comment I believe was very fare and true and if I'd been able to put it so skillfully in to words like Paul, I might have done so. If we cannot accept decent and honnest critique on a photo without running to SC to complain about personnel attacks, then we shouldn't enter a challenge at all. I shoot some pretty lame non artistic shots sometimes and yes they do score better mostly, I've actually got a couple in like that right now, if I were to get a similar comment on them, it would make me laugh because It would be so true. |
It was not about criticism of the photo, but the thinly veiled attacks on the photographer. The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine, and we offered him the chance to edit the comment rather than hide it outright. The validity or dissenting opinion of the critique was not an issue. There's more going on here than the surface story, and it needn't be a matter of public debate. |
Thank you for responding. I honestly don't see anything in that comment that constitutes an attack -- in any veil. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:43:17 AM · #35 |
| How can any of that be a personal attack, when everything he stated SHE stated in the forums. There is nothing in that comment , veiled or not, that she has not asked for in forums and stated, nay, demanded and when it does not fit her pattern she complains. Exactly how many PS messages a week do you get from her complaining. Cus I know she she has stated that she has reported things to you all about 6 times in the last 3 months. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:44:42 AM · #36 |
| As I said, there's more going on here than the surface story. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:45:22 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jagar:
The original comment I believe was very fare and true and if I'd been able to put it so skillfully in to words like Paul, I might have done so. If we cannot accept decent and honnest critique on a photo without running to SC to complain about personnel attacks, then we shouldn't enter a challenge at all. I shoot some pretty lame non artistic shots sometimes and yes they do score better mostly, I've actually got a couple in like that right now, if I were to get a similar comment on them, it would make me laugh because It would be so true. |
It was not about criticism of the photo, but the thinly veiled attacks on the photographer. The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine, and we offered him the chance to edit the comment rather than hide it outright. The validity or dissenting opinion of the critique was not an issue. There's more going on here than the surface story, and it needn't be a matter of public debate. |
Thank you for responding. I honestly don't see anything in that comment that constitutes an attack -- in any veil. |
Nor do I. If anything it was a jab at the community as a whole for considering it imaginative (and by the way it garnered an 8 from me). |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:46:34 AM · #38 |
Those are considered sarcastic personal jabs?
yeah, he's wording things in a slightly non-standard way, but hey, this is a website for artists. You can't expect everyone to write things (or do anything else) in a standard way.
I am guessing there is more to the story and I'm worried that there actually do seem to be a handful of genuine 'personal attacks' starting to form.
But Margaret has actually put this on her profile: "I am very passionate about photography. I'd like to keep on learning and improving. "
Well I'm pretty passionate about learning too and it seems to me that I place higher value on 1 negative, but thoughtful comment than on *50* short, happy, well-meaning, but meaning-less comments. I am worried that when I put a similar statement on my profile that I want to learn and welcome negative, thoughtful comments, nobody will take me seriously because so many other people put this statement that they want to keep on learning and improving when really they just get upset when people try to tell them something substantial.
Negative is better than nothing and interchange is better than silence.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 09:49:29. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:48:03 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I place higher value on 1 negative, but thoughtful comment than on *50* short, happy, well-meaning, but meaning-less comments. |
Again, the validity of the criticism was not in question. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:52:10 AM · #40 |
Thank you Paul for allowing me to puzzle over your image "Mekong" and for the simplicity of your gracious response of "thank you."
Two words we all can learn from... |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:53:00 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
...but hey, this is a website for artists... |
But is it really? I think if that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about this. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:53:10 AM · #42 |
The original comment needs to be restored and a public apology made to ubique.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 09:53:54. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:53:45 AM · #43 |
Fine.
But, what should be discussed is censorship. Forcing Paul to edit his comment is a form of censorship. I do understand how the request came to pass, and I can not fault SC for their reaction. The site allows for this reaction, this is what needs to be changed.
eta: responding to Shannon's last post
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 09:54:24. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 09:57:46 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There's more going on here than the surface story, and it needn't be a matter of public debate. |
Well actually it should, one of the best photographers on this site has been forced to withdraw a perfectly reasonable comment and has now left the site completely. The person responsible for filing the complaint has caused more upset in the last couple of months than in all the time I've been here, surely we should be kept in the light and not just glean information as it trickles in, like children. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:01:06 AM · #45 |
| Off to bed now, just want to say, that no other photographer on here, but maybe a small handful has inspired me and sent shivers down my spine when they've commented on one of my photos than Paul. He is the real deal, not some shallow artist willing to conform. His comments are so insightful and deep, and It was such a pleasure to work with him on the 'art of 2011 jury' It will go down as a highlight for the 2 1/2 years that I've been on DP. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:01:27 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
 |
more |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:02:27 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eschelar:
I place higher value on 1 negative, but thoughtful comment than on *50* short, happy, well-meaning, but meaning-less comments. |
Again, the validity of the criticism was not in question. |
No, I understand, but here we have a good example of a thoughtful, but negative comment. It was delivered in an 'artful' style.
It is common for most people with a modicum of personal decency to try to soften negative comments. Some use humor (which sometimes backfires), some use a compliment (which is often effective, and I try my best to do this myself, but it can still backfire) and some just try to give it a personal spin (which is obviously quite susceptible to misunderstanding.... see above).
His opinion was certainly based on something and it was flavored with a personal style. I believe that should give some indication that he has put thought and consideration into his words.
To me, that moves it out of the realm of personal attack.
It sounds like the comment was censured because of the style, not the content, but it seems that the style was intended to *soften* the comment, not twist the dagger.
The alternative would be a comment with no flavoring, perhaps something like this:
"You say that you want to learn, so I find this picture totally unimaginative and poorly executed and conceived. It is totally devoid of any imagination and I cannot understand how anyone else with half a brain could see the picture as "imaginative". Since it scored so well, that says something about the people who voted. So, while many people would say your picture was amazing on a quick glance, anyone looking closer would find that your picture is completely worthless."
Note that this is from the comment, not a reflection of my personal opinion (which is irrelevant here).
So I would say that the style would not be a valid reason to change that comment. It looks to me like the content *is* exactly why there is an issue about the comment.
But I still don't see the point here. What about that comment is unacceptable here? Even in its blunt, unflavored version, it's not really 'censure' material...
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 10:47:27. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:05:45 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
|
more |
+50 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:06:26 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by eschelar:
...but hey, this is a website for artists... |
But is it really? I think if that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about this. |
yes, photography is an art.
Today I was in a buddhist temple and used their bathroom. I'm not buddhist. The bathroom was built *for* buddhists, so it is *for* buddhists.
Similarly, this website was made for people interested in photography, presumably by people who are interested in photography. Doesn't mean that it's only artists peeing in the trough, but that is the intent. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:13:51 AM · #50 |
I didn't want to say it, but now I must: ubi ubique?
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 10:15:58. |
|
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 07:41:23 AM EDT.
