Forum Etiquette: Please Read - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/14/2006 12:21:06 AM · #9

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...though it may not be immediate if the SC member who made the removal has since logged off...

WHAT!?! I demand you all start wearing pagers so you can answer my questions IMMEDIATELY! What kind of a rickety site is this anyway!

It's all about ME!!!

I must say it's a hell of a note when a giant sloth makes a post demanding immediate response... :-)

R.

DjFenzl

01/14/2006 12:18:13 AM · #10

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

...though it may not be immediate if the SC member who made the removal has since logged off...

WHAT!?! I demand you all start wearing pagers so you can answer my questions IMMEDIATELY! What kind of a rickety site is this anyway!

It's all about ME!!!

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/13/2006 10:45:07 PM · #11

Originally posted by blemt:

I'm not taking it as combative in any way, shape or form. Promise. :)

Your point on PMs is a very good and valid one. It's an excellent reminder for us. That's also why people will get a thread based heads up as well.

I will add to this: If a post of yours is removed or edited, and you don't know why, and you didn't get a PM about it (or don't have access to your email at the moment), feel free to contact us to ask nicely what gives. You will get a response, though it may not be immediate if the SC member who made the removal has since logged off.

The only thing I ask is remain calm, and please try to give us the benefit of the doubt that we're acting in good faith. We are human and we do make mistakes, but we do our best not to act unfairly. When a mistake is made, being nice to the people who can fix it is never a bad idea. ;-)

~Terry

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/13/2006 03:28:50 PM · #12

...[/quote]I agree with everything you posted here except, "dpc has gained a reputation of being a photo site for jerks." It would appear that every site has their fair amount of "jerks" Always look at the number of members and you will find that the more you have, the higher the
liability for infiltration.

The bigger the place grows and the older it gets, the bigger the minority becomes.

Very true not all of ya are jerks, some of my best friends are jerks and many of my worst enemies are great people. It's alwauys safer to have your enemies close than push them too far away ;).

I'm sure there are many more sites that tear into each other and belittle photos with dsestructive critism, it seems more obvious here than others I use. I have not been personally offended yet (ok now's your chance) but I have read other photo remarks that were beyond being honest and were strickly a jerk who can't take better photos themself. I have learned a lot here and hope to continue to do so. Yes there are expert pros here and very beginners, help the beginners and don't destructively tear their work down as they learn.

What usually happens is that the minority attempts to gain an equal voice and if it fails the option is to leave or to give birth to a new enterprise.

This can not mean that everyone in the minority is a jerk. As for me, I can take the place as is or with improvements but this does not mean that I should turn my back on trying to help to make it a better place.

Like you pointed out, this place is privately owned and the owners are not obliged to listen or acknowledge such dissent.

Despite all of the above, DPC has a great majority of decent folks with some of the best talent. A crack pot here and there, yes...[/quote]

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/13/2006 03:23:46 PM · #13

Originally posted by David.C:

...But this new enforcement has my worried. As I've stated there are those who go looking for things to take offense with -- even if the intention is obviously not to offend. This is particularly true when the premise of their statements have been knocked out from beneath them. :D

---

Sarcasm is dangerous to use in the forums, because it relies on reading the person to know that it is sarcasm. But the little jibs and such of friendly comradery help to build a close-knit community -- and this notice has me worried that is going to end. There have already been far too many people more worried about 'how' they are saying something, than 'what' they are saying.

With the lack of any 'real' harm from anything said, I find it best to assume friendly and not take offense at anything -- if I don't understand their stance, I'll ask for clarification. Likewise I state my stance (and have been misread often) but if they choose to assume hostile from me and take offense without seeking clarification -- there is little I can do about that.

David
off to work

David,

in my experience with online moderating, which extends back six or seven years now, you don't need to worry about the first aprt of what I have quoted above. The last thing moderators want to do is "warn" people right and left based on flyby cimplaints. Almost without exception moderators will be aware of the context of the remark even if the vly-by complainer is not, and almost without exception no warning will be issued. Unless DPC proves to be MUCH different from any forum I have particpated in, and I see no signs that it will be. This is sort of self-regulating; trigger-happy moderators create problems all on their own, and don't last long. I have yet to see one here.

The latter part of your advice is extremely wise, and precisely parallels what I tell others in my function as moderator elsewhere (though I'm not currently an active moderator anywhere): "Always assume the good intentions of the poster. Try to completely disregard style and concentrate on substance. Always remember these people don't "know" you and the only power they have over you is what you willingly cede to them. You have NO control over what people say, but 100% control over how you react to it. Refuse to be provoked, and people will stop trying to provoke you."

R.

David.C

01/13/2006 03:08:31 PM · #14

Originally posted by notonline:

I am the same in real life as I am in this cyber space. If that gets me into trouble then so be it.

I approach cyberspace with the same attitude. But in real life we have inflections of tone, facial expressions and body movements for others to read our intent -- here it is just the words, which the reader likely puts a voice to as they read. To make matters worse, in real life I am likely only talking to a handful of people at most, not the hundreds that may view but not participate -- that's a lot of people to worry about not offending.

My concerns here are the random 'by-passers' who pop into a thread and 'listening as they walk past' read something they disagree with and report it. I have done so myself -- but was voicing my concern for the potential of abuse by those who are overly concerned with making certain everyone plays by their personal rules. (btw: that is referring to the person rules of conduct everyone works out for themselves and not the SC ;) ).

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by David.C:
If I may, I would suggest the line be drawn at not making critical remarks against a specific, identifiable entity. That would of course include forum participants, political leaders (ex. Bush), corporations (ex. Microsoft) and nations (ex. US). Although I am certain there are some that will consider it going to far to forbid attacks on any of those listed as examples. ;)
David

You are perfectly right in your assumption that some will consider this "Going a bit too far" , and let me be the first to indicate my reluctance to embark on this slippery slope.

I do not believe that in this instance the issue of "Critical Remarks" is that which should be at the forefront, but rather "Personal Attacks" on members of the community. If indeed we are to remove comments falling within the former category, we might as well consider closing down the comment section at the bottom of the voting pages since constructive criticism would also fall under the category of "Critical Remarks".

Entities such as countries, presidents and large corporations are under constant scrutiny, and to suggest that no negative (insert critical) comments be allowed is a bit much. ...

I was not referring to not discussing (perhaps heatedly) against the actions or statements about such entities -- just about those statements against said entities themselves. To take one of my examples, Microsoft is often under attack -- the the products or actions (although they are as well) but Microsoft itself. Someone chooses to not run a virus checker, no firewall and visits 'those' sites -- and then have the audacity to say Microsoft sucks and can't write an operating system that stays running. I don't see the problem with treating these entities with the same respect as the participants in this little forum.

So my attitude is much the same as gibun's remark about 'play the ball, not the person' -- although I've always thought of it more as 'attack the premise, not the debator'. Anything else just comes off as juvenile to me.

But this new enforcement has my worried. As I've stated there are those who go looking for things to take offense with -- even if the intention is obviously not to offend. This is particularly true when the premise of their statements have been knocked out from beneath them. :D

---

Sarcasm is dangerous to use in the forums, because it relies on reading the person to know that it is sarcasm. But the little jibs and such of friendly comradery help to build a close-knit community -- and this notice has me worried that is going to end. There have already been far too many people more worried about 'how' they are saying something, than 'what' they are saying.

With the lack of any 'real' harm from anything said, I find it best to assume friendly and not take offense at anything -- if I don't understand their stance, I'll ask for clarification. Likewise I state my stance (and have been misread often) but if they choose to assume hostile from me and take offense without seeking clarification -- there is little I can do about that.

David
off to work

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2006 03:07:04 PM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
and so began The Great Dictionary War of 2006...

eskew obfuscation, that's what I say.

Eschew Obfuscation has been the unofficial motto of the Medical section of the Berkeley Free Clinic since about 1978 -- I printed up a "banner" on an old UNIX-driven IBM line-printer around then.

espy2

Nikon D50

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

01/13/2006 02:22:48 PM · #16

Originally posted by mavrik:

LOL

I could make the list ;)

me, dp, nsbca, rose, azochyka, graphicfunk, coolhar, mk

you'd need to add the other 2 - I don't know who personally annoys you most. :) I'm guessing that the above 8 have annoyed most of the site at one point or other.

(not a point of honor for some of us, but we know our place in the scheme)

~M

WHAHHHH??? Why, I am nothing more than a perfect angel I tell ya! :)

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/13/2006 12:55:00 PM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by notonline:
does this mean I cannot sit infront of the computer and drink, get drunk and reply to posts in a drunken state???

There's software out there for this purpose; it's called "Wife 3.0" and you run the post through the software for review and amendment before hitting the submission button. If you're not married, you're out of luck :-)

R.

lol damn I'm outta luck. But on a more positive note, I'm not married. :D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/13/2006 12:53:45 PM · #18

Originally posted by notonline:

does this mean I cannot sit infront of the computer and drink, get drunk and reply to posts in a drunken state???

There's software out there for this purpose; it's called "Wife 3.0" and you run the post through the software for review and amendment before hitting the submission button. If you're not married, you're out of luck :-)

R.

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/13/2006 12:44:18 PM · #19

does this mean I cannot sit infront of the computer and drink, get drunk and reply to posts in a drunken state???

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/13/2006 12:40:58 PM · #20

I do understand the difference...

But where on the scale is me posting 'fact' that will annoy someone - with intent to a) annoy AND b) refute them? Will that be allowed?

I could give an example.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2006 12:39:45 PM · #21

Originally posted by Megatherian:

and so began The Great Dictionary War of 2006...

eskew obfuscation, that's what I say.

DjFenzl

01/13/2006 12:38:57 PM · #22

and so began The Great Dictionary War of 2006...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2006 12:37:08 PM · #23

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Touché; but I still prefer "articulate", thank you very much :-)

They're orthogonal ;)