| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 01:39:09 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by wingyisleeds:
3. Totally agree with Kelli. One of the comments on an entry of mine, if I let my daughter read it, would make her so upset as it said she was a boy. Now the comment itself was not deflammatory or rude, but could cause upset. |
Keith, did you PM the person who left the comment explaining that the photo was actually of a girl and could they please edit their comment to that effect? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:45:41 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Quasimojo:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
"And the informal poll in the thread is silly and pointless." |
Yes it is. Having ANY kind of a poll to change core features of this site because of a single incident is silly and pointless. Is the tail wagging the dog now is it?
I really can't believe how much of a storm in a teacup this really is. If people spent as much effort on their photography as they did in these threads we'd all be regular blue ribboners. End of. |
I find dismissive attitudes like this unproductive and frankly insulting to people who have legitimate concerns, and use the forums as the only venue for discussing those concerns. It is not "end of", we will not "get over it", etc. You ain't dad, and I ain't your kid. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:50:48 PM · #128 |
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
2 (eta -- added for Leroy since he can't do it himself) -kvs
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time?
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 13:56:12. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:53:55 PM · #129 |
Well that is the sense of the community after the (original primise had been distorted) Fine.
We shake hands and move on ... simple
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:56:25 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
I don't understand the numbers you've written here. I think the informal poll won't work, because not everyone is going to see it. It seems to me more people respond to official polls than informal ones. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:58:24 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by karmat:
From the posts in this thread
2
1
1
1
1/7
4
2 (with limits)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1/6
1/3/5
3
2 (eta -- added for Leroy since he can't do it himself) -kvs
Now, I want everyone to ask yourself a question, and answer it honestly. IF the totally unscientific/informal poll was showing a 2 everywhere there was a 1, would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
Leroy Says:
"Yes, we've already heard the voice of the vocal minority of DPC. Let's hear what a real sample of DPCers want. Those that don't like to cause waves. To be frank, I do not see why SC is so opposed to seeing the results."
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:03:05 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Leroy Says:
blah, blah, blah... |
I thought Leroy was in timeout? :-/ |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:14:31 PM · #133 |
| Time out - yes, incommunicado - no |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:19:30 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by karmat:
... would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
Are you starting a new poll in this one? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:21:46 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by karmat:
... would it be considered silly, pointless or a waste of time? |
Are you starting a new poll in this one? |
I'm still waiting for the poll that tells if we can have polls.
seriously, no. It was a rhetorical questions. Just for thinkin' about. :) |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:28:44 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Originally posted by wingyisleeds:
3. Totally agree with Kelli. One of the comments on an entry of mine, if I let my daughter read it, would make her so upset as it said she was a boy. Now the comment itself was not deflammatory or rude, but could cause upset. |
Keith, did you PM the person who left the comment explaining that the photo was actually of a girl and could they please edit their comment to that effect? |
Yep SaraR--- after reading this thread ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:52:23 PM · #137 |
I think we should have a re-count.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 04:03:42 PM · #138 |
I would vote:
- Give control to the photographer over comments about his work
but I'll abstain my vote cause don't want to be arrested ;)
PS: Leroy, I'm with you in this fight but please stay cool. I do trust in SC and I'm sure they'll have good reasons for your suspension. Just calm yourself and return for us. We love you.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:05:43 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by zxaar:
so if someone disagrees with you decision, then he will be suspended. Correct, this is what SC has done.
About the system, I would say, yes it is broken.
Whenever someone requested for delete comment button, the reply he has got is there is a report post button. So the photographer uses it, and his request is ignored (or whatever you did other than deleting those comments).
So definitely this photographer (in this case Leroy) asks for delete button in forum, where he can voice his opinion (if allowed by SC).
What he gets is suspension. Why? Because SC thinks disagreeing with them is disruptive behaviour.
If you want to be fair do not let this discussion to be one sided, remove his suspension and have a dialogue about what you (SC) did or not do.
I really doubt you would remove his suspension and allow a fair dialoq. And this is why I believe the system is broken.
Yes it is broken. |
Zxaar, your conclusion might be logical if the facts as you have stated them were accurate. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Perhaps it would be helpful to review what actually happened here:
1) A comment was reported on Leroy's image. Not one single SC member posted that they felt the comment was inappropriate and needed to be removed, and it was not removed.
2) Leroy did not like the decision, and made a retaliatory comment on an image belonging to the original commenter. This retaliatory comment was a personal attack on the commenter (TOS violation) and contained wildly inappropriate language and reference to sexual orientation (also a TOS violation). The retaliatory comment was removed.
3) Following that, a complaint thread was begun, and a public warning in an earlier thread was issued by an SC member to knock it off.
4) For the rest of the day, other threads were moderated by multiple SC members as what we sometimes call a "forum storm" developed. Posts had to be hidden, threads had to be locked to prevent further personal attacks, other commenters unrelated to Leroy's original complaint were unfairly called out in a hostile way, the community is all up in arms now, and a private warning was issued to Leroy.
5) Behind the scenes, what action to be taken regarding the retaliatory comment issue was discussed; it was determined that suspension of certain site privileges was in order.
OK? So it's not just as simple as someone speaking out and disagreeing with a decision that the SC made. It's much, much, much more than that. |
Okey here is what Leroy has to say. (this is why I wished he could say it here himself, if you allowed fair and both sided debate):
Originally posted by Leroy:
Unfortunately L2 has both facts and time line wrong.
1) SC never informed me as to why none of my comments were removed.
2)I made a retalitory comment and reportedit to SC to get their attention as I was tired of being ignored.
3)Both the retalitory comment and complaint thread were created before SC new anything was happening.
4) The first thread was locked because of SC acting inappropriately with name calling and baiting. I reported several of their posts. They were not suspended.One other thread was created by me and locked by an overzealous SC member. I then created the current poll thread. Any other outrage was already in the system.
5) Behind the scenes SC is blocking my privileges to send PM's, comment or post in forums. And, although they advise users take up negative comments via PMs they seem to think I've abused the PM system by telling members they were out of line.
|
By my experience with SC, I am afraid he might be right about many things. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:48:07 PM · #140 |
I will reply to a few things Leroy "accuses" us of (in no particular order):
1. The posts made by SC in locked threads are all still visible. While some did push the edge of polite, none were violations of forum guidelines or ToS. The thread was locked because it was degrading into petty fighting and going horribly off topic and causing much discord in the forums without assisting with resolution of any salient matters. The thread went bad, including some baiting and threats by Leroy. Read the thread. You don't need to take my word for it. Only a couple posts were hidden, and they certainly aren't necessary to assess the tone and tenor of that thread.
2. We don't always tell everyone if/why we hide comments, but if asked why we didn't, we are glad to respond. We were NEVER asked prior to the storm WHY we didn't hide them. And even after the storm began, we were never asked in any reasonable way why the posts weren't hidden. And when we explained why they were not anyway, the explanation was not accepted. That isn't the same as not getting an explanation, it just wasn't an explanation that Leroy liked. That doesn't change our rationale or what we will and won't do.
3. We have an account from TWO users relaying to us the content of their PMs with Leroy, which were name calling, including calling one user "gay" and other derrogatory, unprovoked comments. That is why he's not allowed to send PMs.
4. Why is Leroy suspended? Because of his disruptive (that means NOT CONSTRUCTIVE) behaviour in the forums and his repeated abuse of the PM system, DESPITE being warned and suspended for this sort of behaviour before. We've gotten much further talking about the comment system while he's been on timeout. That's no co-incidence. This is not the first time that Leroy has responded with derogatory, TOS violating comments and PM's to users who do not like his images; in fact, this is not even the first time that Leroy has been suspended for such activity.
5. More than one user requested via report post that some action be done to curb the disruptive behaviour of Leroy in the forums. He had already ignored public AND private pleas to curb his hostile and disruptive behaviour.
6. FINALLY, it's a mistake to think that the retaliatory comment and complaint thread occurred before we knew what was happening. We knew what was happening, and discussions on what was happening were already underway. We had seen the comments and were discussing it when the storm began.
There are innocent parties here who have aided us in the conclusions and evidentiary findings we have used to base our decisions. We are trying to protect them. There is a lot more to the story than Leroy is telling, and we feel bound to protect the innocent or we'd lay out our case in minute detail.
And as a post-script, Arjun, where exactly are you getting "your experience with SC?" We've barely had dealings with you. I sense you revel in taking on the perceived injustice of others at the hands of SC, without much evidentiary basis or full investigation. Its nice to be an advocate, but its folly to take up a cause or declare an enemy without knowing all the facts.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 18:58:13. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:59:15 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'll register my vote as: 3) ToS rule involving commenting about human subjects (Bear_Music's suggestion) and SC liberal use of it. |
Another vote for #3!
Surely it is possibly to concentrate on the good and bad of the photography aspects, everything from all technical aspects, choice of background/setting, mood etc etc etc without HAVING to comment on the extra pounds or the acne scars or the bad hair-do!
We don't all have access to physically perfect models, nor should we HAVE to! The photography is the same, no matter what the model looks like.
Hurting the model's feelings won't help the commenter OR the photographer.
Oh and: Yes, positive comments about models ARE allowed, just because we are human after all and enjoy nice things and nice words. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:18:16 PM · #142 |
is't the internet fun!!
a vote for #1#
now go outside & take a picture ..
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:39:25 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I will reply to a few things Leroy "accuses" us of (in no particular order):
1. The posts made by SC in locked threads are all still visible. While some did push the edge of polite, none were violations of forum guidelines or ToS. The thread was locked because it was degrading into petty fighting and going horribly off topic and causing much discord in the forums without assisting with resolution of any salient matters. The thread went bad, including some baiting and threats by Leroy. Read the thread. You don't need to take my word for it. Only a couple posts were hidden, and they certainly aren't necessary to assess the tone and tenor of that thread.
2. We don't always tell everyone if/why we hide comments, but if asked why we didn't, we are glad to respond. We were NEVER asked prior to the storm WHY we didn't hide them. And even after the storm began, we were never asked in any reasonable way why the posts weren't hidden. And when we explained why they were not anyway, the explanation was not accepted. That isn't the same as not getting an explanation, it just wasn't an explanation that Leroy liked. That doesn't change our rationale or what we will and won't do.
3. We have an account from TWO users relaying to us the content of their PMs with Leroy, which were name calling, including calling one user "gay" and other derrogatory, unprovoked comments. That is why he's not allowed to send PMs.
4. Why is Leroy suspended? Because of his disruptive (that means NOT CONSTRUCTIVE) behaviour in the forums and his repeated abuse of the PM system, DESPITE being warned and suspended for this sort of behaviour before. We've gotten much further talking about the comment system while he's been on timeout. That's no co-incidence. This is not the first time that Leroy has responded with derogatory, TOS violating comments and PM's to users who do not like his images; in fact, this is not even the first time that Leroy has been suspended for such activity.
5. More than one user requested via report post that some action be done to curb the disruptive behaviour of Leroy in the forums. He had already ignored public AND private pleas to curb his hostile and disruptive behaviour.
6. FINALLY, it's a mistake to think that the retaliatory comment and complaint thread occurred before we knew what was happening. We knew what was happening, and discussions on what was happening were already underway. We had seen the comments and were discussing it when the storm began.
There are innocent parties here who have aided us in the conclusions and evidentiary findings we have used to base our decisions. We are trying to protect them. There is a lot more to the story than Leroy is telling, and we feel bound to protect the innocent or we'd lay out our case in minute detail.
And as a post-script, Arjun, where exactly are you getting "your experience with SC?" We've barely had dealings with you. I sense you revel in taking on the perceived injustice of others at the hands of SC, without much evidentiary basis or full investigation. Its nice to be an advocate, but its folly to take up a cause or declare an enemy without knowing all the facts. |
Just curious. If a member is that disruptive and has a history of being abusive. Why not ban him/her for life. It seems to me it would be a better place. I do think a line has to be drawn at some point. From what I have experienced here at DPC SC does a pretty fair job.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 19:39:54. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:47:37 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
1. Yes, my vote
2. Not a good idea ('wow great shot' on every image springs to mind)
3. Nope, beautifull model/child/subject etc would not be allowed to be fair.
4. Who would clarify? (should read the thread whence this came) Not the fotog and SC have enough on their plate.
5. 1 man/womens vote should carry the same weight as the next unless this isn't a democratic site (should the heavyweight scores vote be worth more than the beginners?)
6. see one.
Two pence well spent :) |
::applauds:: Well said |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:47:50 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
Just curious. If a member is that disruptive and has a history of being abusive. Why not ban him/her for life. It seems to me it would be a better place. I do think a line has to be drawn at some point. From what I have experienced here at DPC SC does a pretty fair job. |
no need to ban him. check out his profile. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:50:38 PM · #146 |
From Leroys Profile:::
Biography: I would like to express my sincere disappointment in the direction this site has turned. It was a great site. WAS.
Thanks SC.
At this point, I haven't decided if DPC is worth being a member of. I will not pay to be treated like an inferior though. I've asked Langdon to kindly refund my $25 membership fee which should not go into effect until March.
Kinda hard to want to give to a site that doesn't want you.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 07:57:02 PM · #147 |
the one thing that has amazed me from this whole discussion is how everyone seems to believe that all the other users of the site are petty, immature fools that can't handle any negative feedback at all. and that they certainly couldn't possibly be trusted with any sort of editorial control at all.
Of course that would be none of the people voting in this thread, just the other people. You know, them.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:07:14 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
the one thing that has amazed me from this whole discussion is how everyone seems to believe that all the other users of the site are petty, immature fools that can't handle any negative feedback at all. and that they certainly couldn't possibly be trusted with any sort of editorial control at all.
Of course that would be none of the people voting in this thread, just the other people. You know, them. |
Gordon, you consistently and conveniently ignore the well-reasoned arguments as to why giving editorial control to comment recipients is a bad idea, and keep implying that anyone who doesn't agree with doing so is automatically denigrating the intelligence and restraint of the rest of the membership. I would submit that it is you who underestimates the intelligence of the site's membership. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:15:16 PM · #149 |
I must say before I write that I have lightly read your post and very unlikely to post further (at least not big message) due to being busy with things around.
I wish Leroy would respond to this because he is well aware about what happened.
First all of your post and SC's response are based on two basic assumptions:
1. Whatever decision SC takes are always right. There are no chances of mistake in them.
2. SC is above human biases.
Well whether SC like to believe or not both these assumptions are wrong.
Originally posted by frisca:
I will reply to a few things Leroy "accuses" us of (in no particular order):
1. The posts made by SC in locked threads are all still visible. While some did push the edge of polite, none were violations of forum guidelines or ToS. The thread was locked because it was degrading into petty fighting and going horribly off topic and causing much discord in the forums without assisting with resolution of any salient matters. The thread went bad, including some baiting and threats by Leroy. Read the thread. You don't need to take my word for it. Only a couple posts were hidden, and they certainly aren't necessary to assess the tone and tenor of that thread.
|
This is where my person experience with SC kicks in. And here you are assuming both the things as I mentioned above, that is SC is always right and they are above human prejudices. It is difficult to find peer SC's posts violating TOS where as others even small things get deleted.
Originally posted by frisca:
2. We don't always tell everyone if/why we hide comments, but if asked why we didn't, we are glad to respond. We were NEVER asked prior to the storm WHY we didn't hide them. And even after the storm began, we were never asked in any reasonable way why the posts weren't hidden. And when we explained why they were not anyway, the explanation was not accepted. That isn't the same as not getting an explanation, it just wasn't an explanation that Leroy liked. That doesn't change our rationale or what we will and won't do.
|
SC always tell why the posts were hidden but hardly ever listens any argument against it. Dealing with SC about this issue is always one sided and ultimately what makes difference is who has the power and who do not have power.
Originally posted by frisca:
3. We have an account from TWO users relaying to us the content of their PMs with Leroy, which were name calling, including calling one user "gay" and other derrogatory, unprovoked comments. That is why he's not allowed to send PMs.
|
you also had reported posts by leroy and chose not to take any action about it. Here you assume that if SC thinks the comments were not offensive they were not offensive. In this matter since photo belongs to the photographer, if he thinks they are offensive then they are offensive the comments should be removed. No matter what SC thought.
Further PM is private talk, there is no reason for SC to poke its nose into it, on PM I shall be allowed to talk whatever way I wish. And you should not be allowed to take PM previledges from paying members. When you say deal with PM then let them deal with PM, simply stay out of personal business. Is it hard to understand.
Originally posted by frisca:
4. Why is Leroy suspended? Because of his disruptive (that means NOT CONSTRUCTIVE) behaviour in the forums and his repeated abuse of the PM system, DESPITE being warned and suspended for this sort of behaviour before. We've gotten much further talking about the comment system while he's been on timeout. That's no co-incidence. This is not the first time that Leroy has responded with derogatory, TOS violating comments and PM's to users who do not like his images; in fact, this is not even the first time that Leroy has been suspended for such activity.
|
Read above.
Originally posted by frisca:
5. More than one user requested via report post that some action be done to curb the disruptive behaviour of Leroy in the forums. He had already ignored public AND private pleas to curb his hostile and disruptive behaviour.
|
It does not matter how many people have reported, if the posts were violeting TOS then as SC you have right to delete them. But you can not suspend and take PM privileges from a member. Just because someone thought he should be banned, it is not enough to suspend or ban someone. Keep personal issues out of this.
Originally posted by frisca:
6. FINALLY, it's a mistake to think that the retaliatory comment and complaint thread occurred before we knew what was happening. We knew what was happening, and discussions on what was happening were already underway. We had seen the comments and were discussing it when the storm began.
There are innocent parties here who have aided us in the conclusions and evidentiary findings we have used to base our decisions. We are trying to protect them. There is a lot more to the story than Leroy is telling, and we feel bound to protect the innocent or we'd lay out our case in minute detail.
|
Leroy might respond to this.
Originally posted by frisca:
And as a post-script, Arjun, where exactly are you getting "your experience with SC?" We've barely had dealings with you. I sense you revel in taking on the perceived injustice of others at the hands of SC, without much evidentiary basis or full investigation. Its nice to be an advocate, but its folly to take up a cause or declare an enemy without knowing all the facts. |
The reason why you do not deal with me is, I appreciate the work SC does for site and I let things go, even if I think SC is mistaken. (Here also writing so much because you have suspended Leroy and someone should tell if he thinks SC is wrong).
About my matter I will PM you when I get time.
/Arjun
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 20:19:11. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:22:20 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
...Further PM is private talk, there is no reason for SC to poke its nose into it, on PM I shall be allowed to talk whatever way I wish. And you should not be allowed to take PM previledges from paying members. When you say deal with PM then let them deal with PM, simply stay out of personal business. Is it hard to understand.
...But you can not suspend and take PM privileges from a member. Just because someone thought he should be banned, it is not enough to suspend or ban someone. Keep personal issues out of this.
|
The PM system is a site privilege, and is subject to the Terms of Use. We will absolutely positively without a doubt suspend PM privileges in those cases where it has been used to harass and abuse other users.
There have been multiple complaints about it from the recipients of those PM's, and it remains under investigation.
We are not here to provide a way for our membership to be harassed and humiliated. |
|
