| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2007 10:32:48 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
--
what this says to me is that the SC needs to review two policies:
1) consistency on how to handle duplicate topic threads. should they be hidden? should they be locked? there is an argument for both.
2) ensure that the last post in each thread is by the SC who is locking the thread with an explanation why that thread is locked. and, if it's a duplicate thread, a link to the other thread covering that topic. |
Great idea... it would certainly alleviate any of the current concerns I have.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:34:57 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's all fruit from the "poisonous tree." all of the related posts should be removed, imho, to keep the thread on topic. |
The poisonous tree, bearing the illicit fruit of our thoughts. As a thought policeman it's your job to prune back the bad fruit and harvest the joy and love that you know we all harbour in our hearts. |
would you rather have a forum where it's ok to call each other names and denigrate other users? because those are the kinds of posts that are hidden.
we can't prevent people from posting inflammatory posts in the first place. all we can do it try to keep the forums civil and on track.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:36:41 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
...we can't prevent people from posting inflammatory posts in the first place. all we can do it try to keep the forums civil and on track. |
and this comes from a guy who wears this  |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:37:17 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by muckpond:
...we can't prevent people from posting inflammatory posts in the first place. all we can do it try to keep the forums civil and on track. |
and this comes from a guy who wears this |
ironic that i'm the one trying to pour water on these flames, isn't it? normally i'm quite the s***-starter. :)
Message edited by Konador - Naughty word, tut tut! Not that I'm censoring or anything.... |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:42:05 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's all fruit from the "poisonous tree." all of the related posts should be removed, imho, to keep the thread on topic. |
The poisonous tree, bearing the illicit fruit of our thoughts. As a thought policeman it's your job to prune back the bad fruit and harvest the joy and love that you know we all harbour in our hearts. |
would you rather have a forum where it's ok to call each other names and denigrate other users? because those are the kinds of posts that are hidden. |
Awwww... I thought we could have had some more fun with the 'poisonous tree' poetic metaphors! Well, I'd be happy to see peace in the forums, interspersed with the forbidden fruit of nude thumbs. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:43:39 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's all fruit from the "poisonous tree." all of the related posts should be removed, imho, to keep the thread on topic. |
The poisonous tree, bearing the illicit fruit of our thoughts. As a thought policeman it's your job to prune back the bad fruit and harvest the joy and love that you know we all harbour in our hearts. |
would you rather have a forum where it's ok to call each other names and denigrate other users? because those are the kinds of posts that are hidden. |
Awwww... I thought we could have had some more fun with the 'poisonous tree' poetic metaphors! Well, I'd be happy to see peace in the forums, interspersed with the forbidden fruit of nude thumbs. |
i'm very pro-nudity. i'm just anti-boss-looking-over-shoulder-when-i'm-supposed-to-be-working.
of course, i work from home. :) this thought policeman can just roll right out of bed and start wreaking havoc while still in my jammies.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:47:26 AM · #107 |
| hmmmm, muck in his jammies. did this thread just become nsfw? |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:11:50 AM · #108 |
If its not illegal, anything should go in Rant. Anyone who doesnt want to see Rant, can block it very easily.
Unfortunately, the padlock comes out depending on each individual SC members view of what's politically correct. This of course is always justified by some vague paragraph buried in the TOS, which is completely subjective and leaves interpretation up to them.
I love the SC, they do a thankless job - for free no less, but they should draw the line at being the thought police. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:33:23 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I believe Louis's suggestion has a lot of merit. If SC is so pressed for time with their myriad duties in these many areas, and they do not want to increase size of SC per se because of problems such as too many chefs in the kitchen on challenge DQs and the like (that could get extremely cumbersome) then just create another category of side administration called "moderators" and restrict their function to the moderation of the forums. |
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either.
I am having a really hard time understanding why given the amount of benefits that are available here why there aren't more here trying to help make the detractors aware that maybe their perception isn't unwarranted, unwanted, and, God forbid, erroneous.
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me. |
You should really switch to decaff. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:39:23 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I thought that this was a photography site, not a chat room or debate club.
I think the tolerance level for the amount of pissing and moaning that goes on that has nothing to do with the site as it pertains to photography is pretty high.
Why not just sh*tcan all the forums that don't have anything at all to do with photography......like say, oh.....the rant forum?
Personal life and general discussion don't have much relevance, either.
I am having a really hard time understanding why given the amount of benefits that are available here why there aren't more here trying to help make the detractors aware that maybe their perception isn't unwarranted, unwanted, and, God forbid, erroneous.
Seems like a bunch of sour grapes and fair-weather friends to me. |
Umm, did you know that you can have exactly what you suggest?
Go into your preferences, and click on the forum filter and then simply uncheck the boxes for the categories you don't wish to see.
You can have the photography site you want and others can continue to piss and moan without disturbing you at all.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 06:18:33 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The fact that they choose to abide by a decent set of standards and do their best to accomodate members even when they call the entire workings of the site into question is pretty damn magnanimous if you ask me. |
And a good day to you too NikonJeb!
Just what exactly is it that you feel the SC is "magnanimous" about.
Nowhere in my comments did I make any derogatory comments about the SC, either by assertion or inference.
There is no denying the fact that they do indeed try to accommodate members, but that fact alone does not mean that there aren't instances where the status quo might not be improved upon.
No one is calling the entire workings of the site into question, as you seem to suggest, but rather some of us are trying to ensure that all issues are dealt with in an equitable manner, and that the players have a full understanding as to the reasons why certain actions were undertaken.
No one is seeking the implementation of a "Quid Pro Quo", but it certainly would prove propitious to implement a process such as that suggested by Muckpond
The fact that you are happy with the status quo should in no manner negate the decisions of others to seek what they consider improvements, and that my friend is what is truly nice about the ability to engage in courteous and civil discourse.
Have a great day.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:36:42 PM · #112 |
I think some of us might be annoyed because some of the discourse directed towards SC has not, in our view, been "courteous and civil", and that expectations and demands are, by some, being put forth instead of requests.
Please note the multiple qualifiers here.
I am not speaking for anyone else although I am guessing others may feel this way.
I am not not NOT accusing any one person of demanding things or being uncivil.
edit: and only some of the discourse. There have been plenty of nice requests and happily worded posts.
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 19:37:33. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 09:22:41 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
No one is calling the entire workings of the site into question, as you seem to suggest, but rather some of us are trying to ensure that all issues are dealt with in an equitable manner, and that the players have a full understanding as to the reasons why certain actions were undertaken. |
What I maintain, and what doesn't seem to be understood, is that SC and the admins are under no obligation whatsoever to explain their actions to anyone for any reason.
They just don't have to......they own the site and can do anything they want.
Why I stated that they're being magnanimous is because they *have* publicly held themselves to a pretty high standard and *do* try to let us know what they're doing and why.
They are also humnan and will make judgments that people won't like (Surprise!) and they can't be everywhere at once on someone else's timeline.
People either don't take the time to consider these facts, or don't care to......so they bust SC's chops, and there is *no* cause to do so, or a right.
That's a basic fundamental thing of a website.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The fact that you are happy with the status quo should in no manner negate the decisions of others to seek what they consider improvements, and that my friend is what is truly nice about the ability to engage in courteous and civil discourse. |
I didn't say that I was happy with the status quo, I am, but that's completely irrelevant.....SC and the admins are not here to please me, they're offering a place for photographers to gather, compete, meet other photogs, share ideas, and consequently, derive pleasure and acquire knowledge, all for a paltry $25 a year.
And again, it's magnanimous that they have decided to provide means to encourage the membership to make suggestions, request services, or assist in any number of means for you, the member, to become a better photographer and enjoy the site.
They are not here to be babysitters, referees, thought police, diplomats, ambassodors, or therapists.......and expecting any of them to assume that mantle in any form is unreasonable.
But they *do* make every effort to be as equitable as possible and whether or not people are pleased with the outcome, it's damn fine of them to make the effort.
It's just like another thread where I was whining for a new feature. I was pretty much of a PITA about it, and eventually, you could tell that the strain was becoming unnecessary, and I had all the indications of becoming a boor about it.
I didn't get what I wanted or what I feel was justification for it.
So what? Tough nuts!
I did my best to wrangle it; it didn't work; oh well.
But I don't for one second think that I had any right to demand either the feature or an explanation that suited me. The decision was pretty much made, or at least assumed, and I, and others didn't push it 'til someone got to the end of their rope and specifically said no.....(Does that leave the door open????)
My own $0.02 is that everyone should always try to remember how the heirarchy works in the real world here, and at most private websites.
And more respect and appreciation should be given to those who have so little sense that they'll tolerate all the crap for the cause.
Thanks SC, Drew, and Langdon, for all that you do and for the absolutely stellar amount of fun and education I've gotten since I've been here from the bottom of my little black annoying heart!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 09:34:15 PM · #114 |
You have a pretty interesting concept of how things work. If you don't like the service at a restaurant, do you say 'well they own the restaurant so where do I get off thinking I can have an opinion about the staff'.
Sorry. While I'm not saying anything one way or another about the actions of the SC, this site exists because people are charged to belong to it. That gives them the right to have an opinion about how it's run.
That's a fundamental fact of commerce. Website or otherwise. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:34:31 PM · #115 |
Again: Aside from the fact that I really feel that we don't actually PAY for a quality forum experience, I agree. I totally think SC *should* do certain things, because their job is to help the site run smoothly. I always think people should do a good job of the things they've committed to do. I don't think we're *owed* what it seems like some people feel that we're owed, but I do still think it's a very good idea for SC to try to keep as many people as happy as possible (which, by the way, I think they do a very good job of with their excellent compromising skills).
-------
People are getting a free meal with their forum experience (we pay for portfolio space, extra challenges, and *extra* forums, with no mention made of how "quality" our forum experience is supposed to be), and some people are yelling at the kitchen staff.
edit for grammar
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 22:35:27. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:23:36 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by photodude:
If its not illegal, anything should go in Rant. Anyone who doesnt want to see Rant, can block it very easily. |
Yes, DPCers can turn off the Rant forum, but DPC can't block Google and other web search applications available on the internet. Point being, if you had a business would you want every conceivable weird, possibly very offensive stuff, being picked up and associated with your business? Most likely not. They (DPC owners Drew & Langdon) have every right to restrict what's put out there that can be associated with them.
Originally posted by photodude:
Unfortunately, the padlock comes out depending on each individual SC members view of what's politically correct. This of course is always justified by some vague paragraph buried in the TOS, which is completely subjective and leaves interpretation up to them. |
Pretty sure it's been mentioned that SC members do discuss situations that arise before taking action. It's not always an individual locking a thread. As far as subjective interpretation of the TOS, it's their right (SC) and obligation to interpret as needed, I'm sure with guidelines set out by Drew & Langdon.
Originally posted by photodude:
I love the SC, they do a thankless job - for free no less, but they should draw the line at being the thought police. |
Somebody has to babysit. :P
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:23:50 PM · #117 |
This thread has skirted the real issues for the majority of the posts... and IMO has become quite irrelevant. So, I will practice a bit of personal censorship... Thread Ignore.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:29:05 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You have a pretty interesting concept of how things work. If you don't like the service at a restaurant, do you say 'well they own the restaurant so where do I get off thinking I can have an opinion about the staff'. |
Apples and oranges.....you're talking about a very narrow range of specific services versus the more ethereal concept of having to answer to someone who may just have a different perspective on why the site is run the way it is.
You're not going to tell the restaurant how to clean their griddle are you? Or question the rate of pay of the busboy, are you?
My concept is well grounded in reality, and I'm not using erroneous analogies to compare it.....I'm specifically referring to the operation of a private website designed to be used for recreation, competition, and education of photography within certain parameters. What on earth does that have to do with a restaurant?
Oh.....and if I don't like the way the restaurant operates, I don't have to go there, do I? I certainly wouldn't presume to tell them how to run it.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Sorry. While I'm not saying anything one way or another about the actions of the SC, this site exists because people are charged to belong to it. That gives them the right to have an opinion about how it's run. |
No it doesn't. You have the inalienable right as a thinking breathing human being to have an opinion, and you can feel free to voice it, but if you do and someone doesn't agree with it, too bad. You can then do your best to work within the system and try to change it, but if it doesn't work out, that's just the way it goes. You don't have the right to question policy....you can always ask, but the entitlement thing is erroneous.
How does paying your membership entitle you to tell the site operators how to run the place?
I have no idea where that idea comes from.
If you go see a movie, and you pay for a ticket, does that give you the right to go tell the theater operator when to run the movie and/or how loud to play it?
Of course not!
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That's a fundamental fact of commerce. Website or otherwise. |
No.....that's your perception of how commerce works, it's not a fact at all. If you want to make it in business, you find a need, fill it, and try your best to serve, cultivate, and retain customers, and there are different means and styles of doing it.
But your customers on no level have the right to tell you how to run your business just because they pay for a service......they are entitled to a service if they pay for it, but the definition, and perception of the service is different at different places for different reasons and to cater to different clienteles. And by the relationship that you establish with your customer base is how the commerce part works......it has to do with the meeting of the needs as per the service offered, it doesn't have anything to do with the management of the business as an entity. Surely you're aware of this fundamental fact of commerce......8>)
As well as having website admin experience, I also had a niche business for 17 years, so I do have a little knowledge of what I speak. I had a very limited clientele within a very narrow spectrum of a line of work, so it was crucial that I established a relationship with my customers. It worked fine for about 14 years 'til the economy got soft and the business kind of dried up. I had the opportunity to sell the building and property, so I got out before I had a sinking ship that I couldn't save. It was a terrific experience and one heck of an education. I did have the occasional customer that I couldn't make happy, but by and large, I was able to figure out what I had to do to keep the typical customer happy and it wasn't too difficult. But I was willing to do what was necessary, and my standards of workmanship were higher than those of my customer base so it was a win-win situation.
I think that the folks here at DPC are of a similar mind in that they go out of their way to try and accomodate a large variety of needs in their efforts to accomodate all different kinds of scenarios. And having been in the learning curve of a business, I'm willing to bet you anything that to a ceratin extent, if they could have seen the way some of this stuff goes, they would never have signed on in the first place. NOBODY can prepare you for what you have to do when you run your own operation. There are too many variables to cover, and nobody has the time to relate everything. It's trial by fire, like you wouldn't believe.
Trust me when I say that the forums are nothing but a headache the whole way around for the operators of the site because in all too many cases, they're a place where people meet to gripe and argue.
Why would anyone want to have to deal with that? Why should they have to? In reality, the responsibility of behavior in the forums rests on us as there are set guidelines that are quite clear as to decorum, and were the rules not flouted, there wouldn't be the issue in the first place.
That there is any problem is because the operators and moderators can't be everywhere at once, and they shouldn't have to be.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:30:45 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by photodude:
If its not illegal, anything should go in Rant. Anyone who doesnt want to see Rant, can block it very easily. |
Yes, DPCers can turn off the Rant forum, but DPC can't block Google and other web search applications available on the internet. |
I am truly intrigued as to what no being able to block web search applications has to do with the contents of a rant thread...Perhaps you could expand on this?
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:33:43 PM · #120 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 00:02:08. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:43:16 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I can't comprehend written English and I will continue to make completely insane replies so long as you continue to rise to the bait. |
Fair enough. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:49:29 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
This thread has skirted the real issues for the majority of the posts... and IMO has become quite irrelevant. |
This thread is different how?
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 23:50:59. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:51:54 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In reality, the responsibility of behavior in the forums rests on us as there are set guidelines that are quite clear as to decorum, and were the rules not flouted, there wouldn't be the issue in the first place. |
Ah but you see dear sir... this issue in this instance is not decorum, but rather a question as to whether or not there is room for improvement relative to the decision making process.
There must exist a modicum of veracity in the suggestion made if we consider the proposals penned by Muckpond at10:22:01AM this same date, wherein he seems to support some of the suggestions made.
I remain convinced that when you ran your business that you would not have summarily dismissed suggestions made by clients that earnestly believed would benefit your cause. I would think you would have looked at these, analyzed them and given them due consideration, which in essence is what is being sought in this instance.
Viewed from my perspective, (which could be erroneous), you seem to equate these questions with an assault on the character and integrity of the SC, and I can assure you that from a personal perspective, nothing could be further from the truth.
We seemingly have reached an impasse relative to our views in this regard, and perhaps it is best that we (at least I), resolve not to partake any further in this discussion with you, as we are now effectively running around in circles.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 23:53:48. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:58:17 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by photodude:
If its not illegal, anything should go in Rant. Anyone who doesnt want to see Rant, can block it very easily. |
Yes, DPCers can turn off the Rant forum, but DPC can't block Google and other web search applications available on the internet. |
I am truly intrigued as to what no being able to block web search applications has to do with the contents of a rant thread...Perhaps you could expand on this?
Ray |
The contents of a rant thread (or any thread for that matter) can feed the search engines. If there were threads that got out of control with talk about various hate groups for example, I don't think that DPC would want their name associated with a place that has ranting debates on (just an example, say Nazi's or the KKK).
Obviously I don't know if this is an issue/concern for Drew & Langdon or not. It seems to me that it could be.
Thought I'd toss that out there because it may be a viable reason for various wording of the TOS, and the direction provided to SC on monitoring the forums. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:00:41 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by photodude:
If its not illegal, anything should go in Rant. Anyone who doesnt want to see Rant, can block it very easily. |
Yes, DPCers can turn off the Rant forum, but DPC can't block Google and other web search applications available on the internet. |
I am truly intrigued as to what no being able to block web search applications has to do with the contents of a rant thread...Perhaps you could expand on this?
Ray |
The contents of a rant thread (or any thread for that matter) can feed the search engines. If there were threads that got out of control with talk about various hate groups for example, I don't think that DPC would want their name associated with a place that has ranting debates on (just an example, say Nazi's or the KKK).
Obviously I don't know if this is an issue/concern for Drew & Langdon or not. It seems to me that it could be.
Thought I'd toss that out there because it may be a viable reason for various wording of the TOS, and the direction provided to SC on monitoring the forums. |
Thank you for your input. That indeed is an issue of consideration.
Ray |
|
