DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> A plea for the "Rant Forum"
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 129, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/15/2005 11:59:13 PM · #1
I very well understand that the S/C is required to police all forums. Out of all their obligations this may be possibly the most unpopular.
Personally, I do not like to see the S/C expressing political thoughts and views nor engaging in controversial topics in the Rant Forums. The fact that they are policing sort of exempts them. There are more reasons, the same razor sharp division that exists outside in the real world, exist here at DPC. (Added for clarity after initial posting): This is merely an opinion and should not be understood that graphicfunk wants the S/C out of the forums. I am only a tiny voice expressing some ideas that have incubated in me after reading many threads. This has nothing to do on a personal basis. Simply an idea to examine.

Their participation is a damper. That is, you are crossing verbal swords with a party that can shut you up or lock the thread. They hold the advantage and as such this potential disqualifies them from participation. I am expressing these thoughts ONLY in the RANT FORUM. This is not a curtailment of their rights. It is just that it makes no sense to police a controversial forum and be part of it. I do believe that the S/C, of which members I hold in high esteem, should always be neutral. I also believe that it is their duties to set the highest example. After this foreword I will address my plea:

The Rant Forum is different from all other forums. It is not a forum for individuals who are quick to take offense. To me, you enter the Rant at your own risk. It is a place where ideas are presented which are tainted with strong convictions. It is indeed a crossing of verbal swords and it most often deal with Ethics, Religion and Politics. These are often explosive topics with diffrences that go 180 degrees. You must be fluent and thick skin to survive it. Otherwise, someone may crush your ideas and send you back from where you came.

Each side fire their amunition and when some are overtaken either because they faltered or the other got the best, then there are slight displays of lost composure where it may spike to unseemly expressions or thoughts. This happens when logical conclusions reach their natural end displaying one party wrong. This is the nature of such discussions and many of us have been taught at home to always avoid these topics at parties, etc.

Now, how can such a Rant Forum be monitored without the S/C showing the colors of their own beliefs excepting to curb a personal attack. Barring personal attacks on individuals, all else should be fair play. Attacks on any concept is fair game. How can anyone say, no you can not attack an idea in this manner. Ideas are ideas and persons are persons. I have seen many interference by the S/C that actually told me more the S/C member's belief than it did of the individual that was being reprimanded.

I long time ago I was referencing the far lefts fanatic fringe which is known as the loony left and a S/C told me not to use loony left but to use far left. The right also has its fringes and approprite names have been earned on both sides. This is the vernacular of the political arena and who can step in and make micro adjustments of what is and what is not appropiate.

Again, the Rant Forum, while not related to photography, is one of the most exciting forums where ideas crash with each other. I think it should have less censorship then the other forums because the heat rises rapidly but this is the nature of Politics, Ethics and Religion.

It is not an intellectual forum, though at times it obeys logical discourse, but rather a place where the initial introduction begins with baits and gambits that on the surface appear reasonable but soon after it degrades into an emotional catharsis. There are great ideas and there are bad ideas and often there is not enough regulation to maintain a steady pace and out of nowhere a jab is made that derails the entire train off track. But then, what do you expect from parties that like the mental justling but are 180 degrees out of phase. Again, with topics of Religion, Ethics and Politics, each side dig their trenches and wave the tip of the swords so as to pretend to communicate and at the end each side walks away in their own respective camps. Yet, stupid as this may seem it gave both sides the ability to exchange ideas. The pent up rant is out of their chest.

The Rant Forum should have a sign atop that reads, "This is not for the softhearted or the delicate. Enter here at your risk and when it gets too hot just bail out. Do not call for help.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 02:23:27.
 12/16/2005 12:03:04 AM · #2
Here, here. I second the idea of either banning SC from the Rant forum or not allowing them to lock threads there.
 12/16/2005 12:08:04 AM · #3
why shouldn't the sc be allowed to participate? i mean, really?

the only times threads get locked or deleted is when they violate the ToS. this site is a business, so it's important to monitor the forums so that they don't violate the rules established by the admins. we don't want to jeopardize their business interests.

this is a private website. there should be no expectation that the rant forum is some kind of wild west free-for-all. the rant forum is a special right granted by d&l, as it really has no place on dpc in the first place. it's important to monitor it to make sure that the rest of the site doesn't get degraded because of it.
 12/16/2005 12:11:39 AM · #4
I think the trigger here is the threat to lock when a certain SC member doesn't agree with a post or position.

edit to add: And no ToS rule has been violated.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 00:12:17.
 12/16/2005 12:13:09 AM · #5
In most cases, when an SC member has participated in the thread, they won't do the locking. If they feel it should be locked, they point it out and leave it up to the non-participating members.
 12/16/2005 12:13:16 AM · #6
SC shouldn't be able to participate in rants because the debaters usually TRY to push each other's buttons - and it's silly for SC to push buttons then lock or threaten when someone responds angrily (which is what SC was going for in the 'debate.'

That being said, if someone goes into the rant forum and gets offended by the language, the ideas or anything else, they DO need to check their issues at the door. Rant is rant - either allow it or don't - but this half-rant crap... eh. It irritates me too.
 12/16/2005 12:15:00 AM · #7
The rant forum should be unmoderated.
 12/16/2005 12:17:17 AM · #8
Let's take a vote on it.

And then do the exact opposite of whatever Brent wants. ;)

*poke...poke*....lol
 12/16/2005 12:18:23 AM · #9
Daniel,

Am I understanding correctly that you are suggesting that SC should either not participate in the Rant forum or, if they ARE allowed to participate, should not have the power to "police" it? If so, I understand where you're coming from, but I have the following observation, which pretty much parallels Muckpond's:

The Rant forum requires policing, arguably more than all the other forums combined. It's not a "free fire zone", it's a forum for open exchange of ideas. For it to be in the least effective certain rules need to be followed. In particular, it needs to be guarded against ad hominem attacks. It's especially important that this forum be policed to see that nothing in it grossly violates the ToS rules of the site, because these are part of the contract the site has made with its members.

I can see where it would be desirable that the "policemen" not be participants in the rants, if only to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails in the members' eyes. Perhaps it would be possible to select a couple of SC who do NOT participate in this forum and who have proven to be fair, level-headed individuals, and delegate all the Rant policing to them?

Robt.
 12/16/2005 12:18:31 AM · #10
Originally posted by muckpond:
why shouldn't the sc be allowed to participate? i mean, really?

the only times threads get locked or deleted is when they violate the ToS. this site is a business, so it's important to monitor the forums so that they don't violate the rules established by the admins. we don't want to jeopardize their business interests.

this is a private website. there should be no expectation that the rant forum is some kind of wild west free-for-all. the rant forum is a special right granted by d&l, as it really has no place on dpc in the first place. it's important to monitor it to make sure that the rest of the site doesn't get degraded because of it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like in the rant forum you throw jabs. No one said that it should be a wild west free for all. That is your expression or jab. You are required to police it to make sure that rules are not broken but it makes no sense for the S/C to enter an argument or exchange of ideas where the S/C holds the upper hand.

The fact that you say that it has no place in DPC shows your attitude and if is such why not outlaw it or censor topics of religion, Morals and ethics. The fact that it is a private web site makes the argument for allowing members to exchange ideas.
 12/16/2005 12:18:37 AM · #11
Daniel has elucidated a valid concern that is a difficult one to approach, as it challenges the authority figures of the site to a higher standard than has historically been met.

I agree that anyone with the authority to police/lock threads should exempt themselves from getting involved in the topics intimately. You don't see sport referees participating in the game, but simply enforcing the rules. This should be no different in the Rant forums which are essentially a debate club.

This change may take a while to happen, but I agree with it in principle. If members of the SC wish to participate in highly charged opinion-based "discussions" they should refrain from the regulation aspect as it is a conflict of interest.



12/16/2005 12:23:19 AM · #12
Originally posted by bear_music:
Daniel,

Am I understanding correctly that you are suggesting that SC should either not participate in the Rant forum or, if they ARE allowed to participate, should not have the power to "police" it? If so, I understand where you're coming from, but I have the following observation, which pretty much parallels Muckpond's:

The Rant forum requires policing, arguably more than all the other forums combined. It's not a "free fire zone", it's a forum for open exchange of ideas. For it to be in the least effective certain rules need to be followed. In particular, it needs to be guarded against ad hominem attacks. It's especially important that this forum be policed to see that nothing in it grossly violates the ToS rules of the site, because these are part of the contract the site has made with its members.

I can see where it would be desirable that the "policemen" not be participants in the rants, if only to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails in the members' eyes. Perhaps it would be possible to select a couple of SC who do NOT participate in this forum and who have proven to be fair, level-headed individuals, and delegate all the Rant policing to them?

Robt.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Robert: I said nothing like you suggest. It is their duty to police all forums to make sure there are no violations that may compromise the site. What I am saying is to interfere with personal attacks and leave ideas alone, unless they are ideas that will hurt the site.
 12/16/2005 12:23:44 AM · #13
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The fact that it is a private web site makes the argument for allowing members to exchange ideas.


i'm not sure i understand your point here. what i meant was that it is at the admins' discretion (NOT the SCs) whether or not these conversations are allowed here at all. they would be wholly within their right to restrict all conversations on this site to be related to photography if they wanted to.

the rant forum is a privilege, not a right. and i see no logical reason why the SC should not be reviewing the content within it.

do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum? we really do strive to be even-minded when it comes to how we treat our SC duties vs. our "rights" as regular participants here.
 12/16/2005 12:25:37 AM · #14
Originally posted by graphicfunk:


Robert: I said nothing like you suggest. It is their duty to police all forums to make sure there are no violations that may compromise the site. What I am saying is to interfere with personal attacks and leave ideas alone, unless they are ideas that will hurt the site.


Thanks for explaining, it was unclear to me in the original post.

Robt.
 12/16/2005 12:28:32 AM · #15
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum?


Originally posted by GeneralE:
Puh-leeze! Don't make me lock this thread.
12/16/2005 12:30:44 AM · #16
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The fact that it is a private web site makes the argument for allowing members to exchange ideas.


i'm not sure i understand your point here. what i meant was that it is at the admins' discretion (NOT the SCs) whether or not these conversations are allowed here at all. they would be wholly within their right to restrict all conversations on this site to be related to photography if they wanted to.

the rant forum is a privilege, not a right. and i see no logical reason why the SC should not be reviewing the content within it.

do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum? we really do strive to be even-minded when it comes to how we treat our SC duties vs. our "rights" as regular participants here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now Rob: with all due respect I sense an ambiguity in what you just posted. If the the Rant Forum has been used for political, religion and ethical debates it must mean that they are okay with it. They have the ultimate right to end it, allow it to continue or to not allow certain topics. What is it that I am missing. It sounds to me like they are not sure whether they want it or not. Yet, they decide and whatever they do is certainly all right with all of us.
 12/16/2005 12:32:09 AM · #17
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum?


Originally posted by GeneralE:
Puh-leeze! Don't make me lock this thread.


lol!
 12/16/2005 12:38:52 AM · #18
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The rant forum should be unmoderated.


I agree, why call it the rant forum if you can't truly rant.
 12/16/2005 12:39:24 AM · #19
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by muckpond:
do you have examples of where the SC has lorded their "power" over others in the rant forum?


Originally posted by GeneralE:
Puh-leeze! Don't make me lock this thread.

I was merely asking that the member not require invocation of the "Nazi Rule" by suggesting that someone's ideas were "evidence that maybe A. Hitler was right ..."

The thread was started to discuss the propriety and efficacy of capital punishment in a supposedly enlightened society. Mr. Hitler's views on eugenics or the search for truth have little bearing on the topic, but seem to me to serve purely an inflammatory purpose.

I didn't lock the thread, but rather pointed out that someone had made a remark which traditionally signals the end of the discussion, giving them the opportunity to revise/retract their remarks or attempt to justfy them.

To inform someone that they are at risk of running afoul of the site TOS doesn't seem like "lording it over" anyone but rather offering helpful advice to avoid a big stink and creating an unnecessary diversion.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 00:40:12.
 12/16/2005 12:41:44 AM · #20
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The rant forum should be unmoderated.


I agree, why call it the rant forum if you can't truly rant.

You still can't violate the site TOS. That's really about all I try and limit people to ...
 12/16/2005 12:43:12 AM · #21
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The rant forum should be unmoderated.


I agree, why call it the rant forum if you can't truly rant.


Bingo.
 12/16/2005 12:47:10 AM · #22
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The rant forum should be unmoderated.


I agree, why call it the rant forum if you can't truly rant.


Bingo.


I agree. And I don't think the SC should be held to any sort of standards in Rant either. I have some things to say.
 12/16/2005 12:48:02 AM · #23
you can rant all you want on a site YOU own.
 12/16/2005 12:49:19 AM · #24
generale's "puh-leez" statement is perhaps the only example that I can think of, and it happened just today. If it had been any other SC member, I would have said (privately) -- whoa, that was stepping over the line. Why not for him? 1) Because to the best of my knowledge he has never locked a thread or hidden a post. And usually has a few words for us when we do. ;) and 2) I, too, was involved in that thread at various points, so I am "'self'-exempted" from "policing" that one. and 3) I really didn't think it went over, because I thought I knew what he was referring to (that nazi thing) Even so, if anyone felt generale stepped over the line there, the report post button could have been used.

As it has been said, previously in this thread and others, if I am embroiled in a debate in rant, then I know that I will not lock/hide/delete in that thread. I, personally, have gone so far as to not lock/hide/delete threads that I disagree with, even if they do violate the ToS. I will usually bring it up, and if the rest feels it violates, I let them do it.

Personally, if you (meaning the powers that be) say that I, as a SC, cannot be involved in the rant, so be it. But, I think it is a gross injustice to both us and the site. While you may not lose a lot intellectually from my absence, not allowing generale, muck, scalvert, mk, frisca and some of the others to post will [be a loss of intellectual contribution].

I appreciate the time to write an obviously well thought out post, but in general premise, I just don't think it would be fair to the council or the site.

And besides, not letting GeneralE rant could possibly result in some cardiac problems or something.

edited to clarify something, correct some grammar and things like that

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 00:55:39.
 12/16/2005 12:49:36 AM · #25
General: your posting merits a response but this is not the place. Perhaps it would best if a list of the taboo triggers were identified so that a person unwinding an argument will know which ideas are not allowed. Ideas to me are ideas and however you formulate yours and express them I can certainly deal with them and return a proper response. I do not freak out with controversial nonsense and there is much nonsense expressed in the echange of ideas.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 05:15:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/06/2025 05:15:37 AM EDT.