|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2007 08:22:42 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
I remember I got in trouble for having a non nude in the nudes! |
Yep, and I mentioned that as an example of even-handed response by the SC.
Ben, I think you and other SC folks deserve every ounce of praise you receive, and I have yet to see the SC do anything even the slightest bit underhanded.
I hope you understand my message of thanks was sincere, not sarcastic. :)
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 08:40:02 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
I remember I got in trouble for having a non nude in the nudes! |
And you're all reformed now! :) |
Have you read her bio? I'm not sure that reformed is a good word. :-)
MattO
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:07:49 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Instead we just got the incredibly rude (in my opinion) reply. |
Incredibly rude? Or just terse and to the point? The fact that you think it was "incredibly rude" shows a bias on your part. It shows that you can't stand to be spoken to a certain way, probably because of a privileged position you feel you have. It's understandable. People given power often succumb to such biases. And people who love power structures chime in and give support. But I don't have to like it.
All she has to do is give in and move the photo. All that is required is just a small, tiny, private act of humiliation that almost nobody will know about, and all will be better. After all, she didn't immediately reveal her vulnerability to you. Did it occur to you that people don't like to reveal their vulnerabilities right away? To take it a step further, did it occur to you that if you considered this an interaction between two equal human beings, you might have been more patient, more respectful of her private reasons for whatever she was saying about her own affairs?
I've seen your e-mails to Mary, and the word "kindly" never came to mind. And yes, she wasn't kindly to you, either. She was petulant! She was defensive! And then she dared to ignore you. And now she's suspended. But just until she gives in. Maybe she will. It would be a very mature thing to do. And somebody should be mature about this, after all.
Believe it or not, it is not my usual m.o. to criticize the SC. Mostly because it's pointless, and because I've had "management" roles myself at forums so I know that you can never make everyone happy. But I am in a difficult position here. Not only have I grown to like Mary and trust her, I am also saddled with being the figurehead of this organization called Team Suck, an organization that has come to mean something to myself and other people. And seeing as how Mary is the backbone of Team Suck, I need to make my feelings clear about this matter, as I try to salvage TS (which is Mary's wish, btw).
I realize that some of the "rah rah SC" messages are coming from Team Suck members. I have never wanted Team Suck to be a monolith of opinion, and it never has been. I just ask that they be patient and respectful of Mary and myself as we figure out how to continue this organization. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:26:59 PM · #54 |
Mary has been un-suspended for a couple of hours after moving her photo. She was never banned, and was told from the start that the suspensions would be removed as soon as her photo was moved.
If my post sounded a bit "up-myself" or that I was taking advantage of my position or whatever it made you think, I apologise, I was just angry after reading the team suck forum which someone linked to in the SC area. It was full of suck members basically saying that the SC were wrong, when they really didn't have a clue about the whole situation. That insults all of us on the SC who put the time in to help and make sure things are fair. We could just do things straight away and save ourselves time, but we don't, we discuss everything to make sure its the right thing to do.
I didn't personally respond to any of Mary's emails, but I did see them in the tickets admin section and we did all discuss it in our forum in depth before taking any action. I think I would have found Mary's reply rude whether I was in a "privileged position" or not. That's not saying she's a rude person or anything, it just came across very rude as a reply to our request. Maybe you wouldn't consider our emails as kind - no-one disagreeing with our request would I expect - but they were certainly civil and polite. We did wait 2 days before taking any action, and there was no reply from Mary to the last 2 emails we sent. How can we be respectful of her private reasons when she never gave any initially and then proceeded to ignore us? We're not psychics.
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 22:27:27.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:39:58 PM · #55 |
Last night in my Management class, we had to stage these cheesy little roleplaying things in which a supervisor had to address some complaints about an employee with that employee. The key was to build rapport, ask for some explanation, and then move into a discussion of how to resolve the problems. When the supervisors failed to do this, the employees immediately got defensive and became withdrawn from the conversation. The worst was when the supervisors just sat the employee down and gave them "solutions" with little explanation and no input. But when they did demonstrate some empathy, build a rapport, etc., the employees opened up, didn't feel like they were under siege, the entire scenario became clearer for both parties, and no one walked away mad.
I'm not taking sides on the issue at large, but this whole argument and the description of actions and reactions did make me wonder how much more smoothly it could have gone if approached differently. Yay for Becky's grad school...
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 22:42:13.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:46:01 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Konador:
Instead we just got the incredibly rude (in my opinion) reply. |
Incredibly rude? Or just terse and to the point? The fact that you think it was "incredibly rude" shows a bias on your part. It shows that you can't stand to be spoken to a certain way, probably because of a privileged position you feel you have. It's understandable. People given power often succumb to such biases. And people who love power structures chime in and give support. But I don't have to like it.
All she has to do is give in and move the photo. All that is required is just a small, tiny, private act of humiliation that almost nobody will know about, and all will be better. After all, she didn't immediately reveal her vulnerability to you. Did it occur to you that people don't like to reveal their vulnerabilities right away? To take it a step further, did it occur to you that if you considered this an interaction between two equal human beings, you might have been more patient, more respectful of her private reasons for whatever she was saying about her own affairs?
I've seen your e-mails to Mary, and the word "kindly" never came to mind. And yes, she wasn't kindly to you, either. She was petulant! She was defensive! And then she dared to ignore you. And now she's suspended. But just until she gives in. Maybe she will. It would be a very mature thing to do. And somebody should be mature about this, after all.
Believe it or not, it is not my usual m.o. to criticize the SC. Mostly because it's pointless, and because I've had "management" roles myself at forums so I know that you can never make everyone happy. But I am in a difficult position here. Not only have I grown to like Mary and trust her, I am also saddled with being the figurehead of this organization called Team Suck, an organization that has come to mean something to myself and other people. And seeing as how Mary is the backbone of Team Suck, I need to make my feelings clear about this matter, as I try to salvage TS (which is Mary's wish, btw).
I realize that some of the "rah rah SC" messages are coming from Team Suck members. I have never wanted Team Suck to be a monolith of opinion, and it never has been. I just ask that they be patient and respectful of Mary and myself as we figure out how to continue this organization. |
Since I've been sort of involved in this .... I think you can say these things if you want to about SC in general, but not about Ben in particular. That's just not right.
Ben is one of the kindest persons on Site Council, he's fair, he's very patient, and EXTREMELY mature for his age. If there's anyone on SC who would never be rude to anyone else, it's Ben. You're wrong in accusing him - he would never take advantage of a privileged situation. OK. So that's that.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:48:01 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Konador:
Instead we just got the incredibly rude (in my opinion) reply. |
Incredibly rude? Or just terse and to the point? The fact that you think it was "incredibly rude" shows a bias on your part. It shows that you can't stand to be spoken to a certain way, probably because of a privileged position you feel you have. It's understandable. People given power often succumb to such biases. And people who love power structures chime in and give support. But I don't have to like it.
All she has to do is give in and move the photo. All that is required is just a small, tiny, private act of humiliation that almost nobody will know about, and all will be better. After all, she didn't immediately reveal her vulnerability to you. Did it occur to you that people don't like to reveal their vulnerabilities right away? To take it a step further, did it occur to you that if you considered this an interaction between two equal human beings, you might have been more patient, more respectful of her private reasons for whatever she was saying about her own affairs?
I've seen your e-mails to Mary, and the word "kindly" never came to mind. And yes, she wasn't kindly to you, either. She was petulant! She was defensive! And then she dared to ignore you. And now she's suspended. But just until she gives in. Maybe she will. It would be a very mature thing to do. And somebody should be mature about this, after all.
Believe it or not, it is not my usual m.o. to criticize the SC. Mostly because it's pointless, and because I've had "management" roles myself at forums so I know that you can never make everyone happy. But I am in a difficult position here. Not only have I grown to like Mary and trust her, I am also saddled with being the figurehead of this organization called Team Suck, an organization that has come to mean something to myself and other people. And seeing as how Mary is the backbone of Team Suck, I need to make my feelings clear about this matter, as I try to salvage TS (which is Mary's wish, btw).
I realize that some of the "rah rah SC" messages are coming from Team Suck members. I have never wanted Team Suck to be a monolith of opinion, and it never has been. I just ask that they be patient and respectful of Mary and myself as we figure out how to continue this organization. |
This is probably this lamest thing I have ever seen cause anyone to take issue with the SC.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:58:36 PM · #58 |
Nature and nude are right next to one another. I hit Nude one challenge when I meant to hit nature. I got a very friendly E-Mail asking me to please change it...and I did no problem.
In a recent challenge I hit Nude on purpose, even though it was not a person...but I thought it fit.
I never got an E-mail, however if I did I would have changed, no big deal.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:04:25 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Incredibly rude? Or just terse and to the point? |
Yes, incredibly rude. Also terse and to the point, but still incredibly rude. If you really did read the e-mails, I'm surprised you don't agree.
Originally posted by posthumous:
The fact that you think it was "incredibly rude" shows a bias on your part. It shows that you can't stand to be spoken to a certain way, probably because of a privileged position you feel you have. It's understandable. People given power often succumb to such biases. And people who love power structures chime in and give support. But I don't have to like it. |
I'm stunned at this assertion. Not only does this paragraph assume facts not in evidence, it is astonishingly insulting.
Originally posted by posthumous:
All she has to do is give in and move the photo. All that is required is just a small, tiny, private act of humiliation that almost nobody will know about, and all will be better. After all, she didn't immediately reveal her vulnerability to you. Did it occur to you that people don't like to reveal their vulnerabilities right away? To take it a step further, did it occur to you that if you considered this an interaction between two equal human beings, you might have been more patient, more respectful of her private reasons for whatever she was saying about her own affairs? |
Actually, the only thing that occurred to me (personally) was bewilderment. Let's put the focus back on the facts, and not feelings. We have gallery categories, and we ask only that people use them effectively. When we see (or it is pointed out to us) that this is not happening, we send a request to the photographer in question and ask them to move it. This is not unreasonable, nor should it be a cause for psychological investigation. It's really pretty simple -- don't put non-nudes in the Nude gallery. How is that hard to comprehend? This is not about personal or private reasons for anything - the images are posted publically on the Internet. As for being patient, there was a significant delay and two more explanatory e-mails asking for cooperation.
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've seen your e-mails to Mary, and the word "kindly" never came to mind. And yes, she wasn't kindly to you, either. She was petulant! She was defensive! And then she dared to ignore you. And now she's suspended. But just until she gives in. Maybe she will. It would be a very mature thing to do. And somebody should be mature about this, after all. |
Perhaps the most mature thing of all would have been to correctly classify the image in the first place. Failing that, perhaps a more mature thing to do would have been to think of everyone in the community and help to make the gallery classifications useful for everyone upon a reasonable request for same. Failing that, perhaps a mature thing to do would have been to assume good faith on the part of the SC and privately question other non-nudes incorrectly classified rather than publically trying to embarass other photographers who probably made a legitmate mistake in their classifactions in order to make a petty point.
But in the end, I guess simply acceding to the site rules would count as mature.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Believe it or not, it is not my usual m.o. to criticize the SC. Mostly because it's pointless, and because I've had "management" roles myself at forums so I know that you can never make everyone happy. But I am in a difficult position here. Not only have I grown to like Mary and trust her, I am also saddled with being the figurehead of this organization called Team Suck, an organization that has come to mean something to myself and other people. And seeing as how Mary is the backbone of Team Suck, I need to make my feelings clear about this matter, as I try to salvage TS (which is Mary's wish, btw). |
If you are truly in a difficult position, IMHO it is of your own making. This whole thing has just been so silly and not fun, and this post is contributing to a drama that never needed to be; and all in the name of a false righteous indignation.
Originally posted by posthumous:
I realize that some of the "rah rah SC" messages are coming from Team Suck members. I have never wanted Team Suck to be a monolith of opinion, and it never has been. I just ask that they be patient and respectful of Mary and myself as we figure out how to continue this organization. |
Perhaps they will be as patient and respectful as Mary has been. One can only hope....
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:21:04 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Ben is one of the kindest persons on Site Council, he's fair, he's very patient, and EXTREMELY mature for his age. If there's anyone on SC who would never be rude to anyone else, it's Ben. You're wrong in accusing him - he would never take advantage of a privileged situation. OK. So that's that. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to single out Ben. I don't know who's responsible for what. I don't even know what I'm responsible for. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:30:23 PM · #61 |
I just stumbled upon a pretty useful tutorial on how to leave and receive comments. I think it applies quite directly to this issue and just about every time I've ever seen people upset at someone else's actions.
Before I get to it, please bear with me on a few observations. These are based on my reading of numerous forums, having had several email conversations with people, including SC members, and other life experiences.
1) People in power are always suspected by some of nefarious motives. That's life in power. It's why you just have to have thick skin to be in power. And it's also why excellent communication skills are critical.
2) Having half the story is never good. Any story. Either side.
3) People react differently to the exact same thing. And sometimes they react differently from one day to the next because of outside events.
4) Some people jump to accusations quickly. Again, that's just life.
5) People generalize about groups based on the behavior of individuals. It sucks, but it's true.
6) People outside the know are often missing critical pieces of information. Their actions and reactions can look very different when you keep that in mind. And it's nearly impossible to remember what you know and what others don't unless you really put serious effort into it. Even then, it's hard.
No, nothing groundbreaking in any of that. But they're still good things to keep in mind.
Now, here are the headings from that tutorial. I've removed only the specifics about commenting.
How to Give Feedback:
1. Help people save face.
2. Focus on specific, observable behavior-not judgment or personality.
3. Don't generalize.
4. Tell people when errors exist.
5. Avoid nitpicking.
How to Receive Feedback:
1. Don't be thin-skinned.
2. Ask for clarification.
3. Acknowledge your mistakes.
4. Assume best intentions.
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 23:30:59.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:30:44 PM · #62 |
| To my knowledge I was never sent an e-mail to remove my shots, but I removed my naked frogs, the blue lizard, my butt and sexy mammatus clouds, my newborn baby shot and shower family Force Field shot to other galleries. I have never personally spent any time gawking around the nude gallery, since I'm not into "real" nudes. No big deal. Just thought it was fun, but I guess not for all. ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:42:51 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
4. Tell people when errors exist. |
hmm... |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 11:44:36 PM · #64 |
no, bad  crayon! behave!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:00:00 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
no, bad crayon! behave! |
Correction, it should be, "No, bad crayon! No donuts!"
:))))
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:04:11 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Incredibly rude? Or just terse and to the point? |
Yes, incredibly rude. Also terse and to the point, but still incredibly rude. If you really did read the e-mails, I'm surprised you don't agree.
Originally posted by posthumous:
The fact that you think it was "incredibly rude" shows a bias on your part. It shows that you can't stand to be spoken to a certain way, probably because of a privileged position you feel you have. It's understandable. People given power often succumb to such biases. And people who love power structures chime in and give support. But I don't have to like it. |
I'm stunned at this assertion. Not only does this paragraph assume facts not in evidence, it is astonishingly insulting.
Originally posted by posthumous:
All she has to do is give in and move the photo. All that is required is just a small, tiny, private act of humiliation that almost nobody will know about, and all will be better. After all, she didn't immediately reveal her vulnerability to you. Did it occur to you that people don't like to reveal their vulnerabilities right away? To take it a step further, did it occur to you that if you considered this an interaction between two equal human beings, you might have been more patient, more respectful of her private reasons for whatever she was saying about her own affairs? |
Actually, the only thing that occurred to me (personally) was bewilderment. Let's put the focus back on the facts, and not feelings. We have gallery categories, and we ask only that people use them effectively. When we see (or it is pointed out to us) that this is not happening, we send a request to the photographer in question and ask them to move it. This is not unreasonable, nor should it be a cause for psychological investigation. It's really pretty simple -- don't put non-nudes in the Nude gallery. How is that hard to comprehend? This is not about personal or private reasons for anything - the images are posted publically on the Internet. As for being patient, there was a significant delay and two more explanatory e-mails asking for cooperation.
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've seen your e-mails to Mary, and the word "kindly" never came to mind. And yes, she wasn't kindly to you, either. She was petulant! She was defensive! And then she dared to ignore you. And now she's suspended. But just until she gives in. Maybe she will. It would be a very mature thing to do. And somebody should be mature about this, after all. |
Perhaps the most mature thing of all would have been to correctly classify the image in the first place. Failing that, perhaps a more mature thing to do would have been to think of everyone in the community and help to make the gallery classifications useful for everyone upon a reasonable request for same. Failing that, perhaps a mature thing to do would have been to assume good faith on the part of the SC and privately question other non-nudes incorrectly classified rather than publically trying to embarass other photographers who probably made a legitmate mistake in their classifactions in order to make a petty point.
But in the end, I guess simply acceding to the site rules would count as mature.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Believe it or not, it is not my usual m.o. to criticize the SC. Mostly because it's pointless, and because I've had "management" roles myself at forums so I know that you can never make everyone happy. But I am in a difficult position here. Not only have I grown to like Mary and trust her, I am also saddled with being the figurehead of this organization called Team Suck, an organization that has come to mean something to myself and other people. And seeing as how Mary is the backbone of Team Suck, I need to make my feelings clear about this matter, as I try to salvage TS (which is Mary's wish, btw). |
If you are truly in a difficult position, IMHO it is of your own making. This whole thing has just been so silly and not fun, and this post is contributing to a drama that never needed to be; and all in the name of a false righteous indignation.
Originally posted by posthumous:
I realize that some of the "rah rah SC" messages are coming from Team Suck members. I have never wanted Team Suck to be a monolith of opinion, and it never has been. I just ask that they be patient and respectful of Mary and myself as we figure out how to continue this organization. |
Perhaps they will be as patient and respectful as Mary has been. One can only hope.... |
Okay, I can't sit back any longer, I must say this is getting blown out of proportion, the reason we say we are on this site is to get better at photography and have fun...this is not helping either cause. From what I have read on the forums on DPC and off site at the clubhouse, this member is not comfortable with a certain image...fair enough, but the SC has shown they are willing to work with this person to remove the offending image if they are willing to comply with the stated rules of the site...in a previous post it was mentioned that if the person were to request the removal of the image from the challenge archives this would be possible...isn't that what got this started to begin with? or am I missing something here?
I know I will probably get blasted for this but if so...then so be it. I think the spirit of TS is something to be proud of and I for one am happy to be a part of it...Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:06:17 AM · #67 |
oh, no no... it sounds as if she was asked to remove a certain image from a gallerie, she refused, she got suspended, and thus the hoopla...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:11:55 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
oh, no no... it sounds as if she was asked to remove a certain image from a gallerie, she refused, she got suspended, and thus the hoopla... |
Correct, but the image was put in the gallery so it would be hidden from view because it bothered this person...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:15:53 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by jackal9:
Originally posted by Muppet:
oh, no no... it sounds as if she was asked to remove a certain image from a gallerie, she refused, she got suspended, and thus the hoopla... |
Correct, but the image was put in the gallery so it would be hidden from view because it bothered this person... |
The nude gallery gets more views then ANY other gallery on the site.
MattO
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 12:18:54 AM · #70 |
(removed) sorry, wrong thread
Message edited by author 2007-04-11 00:22:59. |
|
|
|
04/11/2007 05:01:47 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And people who love power structures chime in and give support. |
Wow, you're really going for gold in trying to insult as many people as possible aren't you?
I certainly don't love power structures. Infact I hate situations where people set themselves up as authority figures without justification or reason. Anyone who has ever met me or got to know me online knows I'm very much not someone who kowtows to people just because of their position. My support and respect are hard won.
I support SC in general because they work extremely hard and put in extremely long hours in order to keep this site running. It would, quite literally, fall apart without their efforts. And often the reason they spend 10 hours instead of 1 hour on something is down to their efforts to be fair, consistent, reasonable.
I support SC in this particular case because they have made a reasonable request, received a rude reply, had to take some unpleasant actions due to stubborn refusal to play by the rules and then been publicly lambasted for doing so by someone who, in my opinion, is way out of line.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 01:39:18 PM  |
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: 08/07/2025 01:39:18 PM EDT.
|
