| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2012 01:56:33 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by frisca:
The court of public opinion does not abide by any rules of evidence or procedure, but that doesn't mean the actions of the moderators of this forum must follow the same chaotic receipe. |
Yes, but, there are no apparent rules in how our moderators respond to reported posts. That is indeed a recipe for chaos.
eta: guidelines may be a better word than rules |
well said (says she who is still hoping for a solution to ensure this won't happen again). |
How about explaining exactly how Neil's message is inconsistent with "enforcing" the Forum Guidelines Rules as written and posted. I might have phrased it slightly differently, but the essence seems to merely reiterate what the forum rules state.
And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules? Do we have to end every ticket "Pretty Please, with sugar on top" on order to make sure people don't have a snit-fit and take their ball camera and go home?
ETA: If YOU got a ticket asking you to edit a comment because it appeared to violate the Forum Rules, how would YOU have responded?
Message edited by author 2012-06-14 14:00:49. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 01:58:39 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by jagar:
[quote=frisca] I know many of you are upset at MargaretN, not only for her part in this situation and her subsequent unkind and inaccurate comments, but other unpopular things she has said in the past. That should never be a reason to call her or anyone else out, especially repeatedly. We've dealt with the "gloating" post, and welcome any further rules violation comments to be reported.
I'm all for backing off and never resolving the obvious problem, let's just let it run and pretend nothing's wrong, maybe time will heal or maybe shit will fly, who knows, i officially back off.
 |
I think the shit's been flying for some time now...let's wait for the pigs to lift-off! ;) |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:01:29 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by frisca:
The court of public opinion does not abide by any rules of evidence or procedure, but that doesn't mean the actions of the moderators of this forum must follow the same chaotic receipe. |
Yes, but, there are no apparent rules in how our moderators respond to reported posts. That is indeed a recipe for chaos.
eta: guidelines may be a better word than rules |
Ben -- let's start a new thread and talk about what guidelines you feel ought to be in place. I have outlined in a previous post in this thread the general procedure SC follows when comments or posts are reported to us, and invited input into changes to that procedure. I find your above comment about the lack of "apparent guidelines" (to incorporate your edit) to be both inaccurate and inflammatory. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:07:14 PM · #204 |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:07:16 PM · #205 |
Meh. I can see both sides of this conflict. On one hand the comment was ascerbic which isn't in itself bad. But imagine if ALL the comments on DPC were as such? Is that the site we want? If I had to choose between two imperfect worlds, I'd choose the one of over overly nurturing support than one of constant breaking down. On the other hand artists can be difficult to have around. They can be moody and tempermental and that is part of their genius. Do you think Van Gogh was at the top of everybody's "to invite" party list? I doubt it. However, you shouldn't pander to the tempermental artist any more than you should pander to anybody else. In fact, it pandering probably destroys their genius faster than it hurts the rest of us more mundane artisans. Just because we respect Paul's artistic vision, we can't just allow him to act like a bull in a china shop. The efforts to correct seem to have been gentle.
Nothing more to see here in my view.
Message edited by author 2012-06-14 14:08:30. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:22:53 PM · #206 |
| Pam, my apologies, it certainly was not meant to be inflammatory. In fact, my preference is that folks not attack the SC. If I recall your post correctly, it struck me as reasonsble but inconsistent with how this instance was handled. To me, that means that there will be variations in how requests to edit posts, etc., are handled; thus, that leaves individual SC members unfairly open to a brow beating. A canned response, at least initially, would help; and it avoids the initial request coming off as a threat or ultimatum. This MAY have prevented this outcome, we will never know. Prior to this thread going live I had sent a response in the context of a ticket to SC with some suggestions. I'll see if I can dig it up, but it will need to be this evening. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:23:53 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nothing more to see here in my view. |
Personally I'd like to see this (and the other thread) moved to the rant section. Yup, 2 sides to every story but Paul has gone. Yes, he will most likely be missed by lots of people but that is his choice and on this occasion I felt his post was a indeed a veiled personal attack and didn't find it at all grown up, in fact the critique part of his post made sweeping statements that (imo) can not be backed up and after all, it won the blue ribbon so was the best 'fit' for that particular challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:28:24 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just because we respect Paul's artistic vision, we can't just allow him to act like a bull in a china shop. The efforts to correct seem to have been gentle. |
This here illustrates the disconnect. A bull in a china shop? Only if that china shop is a studio apartment and its owned by a hoarder... |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:42:04 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
in fact the critique part of his post made sweeping statements that (imo) can not be backed up and after all, it won the blue ribbon so was the best 'fit' for that particular challenge. |
This is where I disagree. I thought the exact same thing, the photo in question was junk for that particular challenge. Paul wrote his sentiments a little more eloquently then I could have, but nevertheless, someone else did share them.
An opinion on an entirely subjective subject can never be backed up. I can try to explain why I feel or think the way I do, but there is no right or wrong answer. In the end, the average score dictates who wins but that doesn't mean people can't disagree and present their opinion of dissent.
CS |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:42:21 PM · #210 |
Haven't been on DPC for a week or so so i've missed all this. Very sad to see Paul leave. I hope there is somewhere else online that he puts his images (if anyone knows, please pm me)
 |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:42:51 PM · #211 |
 Margaret that's a beautiful photograph. I realize how much I miss Paul and it's only been a couple days. The whole affair is sad. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:43:06 PM · #212 |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:44:44 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just because we respect Paul's artistic vision, we can't just allow him to act like a bull in a china shop. The efforts to correct seem to have been gentle. |
This here illustrates the disconnect. A bull in a china shop? Only if that china shop is a studio apartment and its owned by a hoarder... |
Heh. Good one. :) Don't take the analogy further than it needs to go. I just meant there are limits when functioning in a society and we can't just give out free passes based on our perceived value the passholder brings.
Message edited by author 2012-06-14 14:45:18. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:46:13 PM · #214 |
| Did Picasso's talent and artistic success make the way he treated the women in his life OK? |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:47:18 PM · #215 |
Message edited by author 2012-06-14 14:47:37. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:47:19 PM · #216 |
Shoot! I go on vacation and come back to this!
I did read Paul's original post and thought "there he goes again". I never thought things would go to this extreme.
Sorry to see him go -- it's our loss. If anyone knows where he's posting, let me know. I want to follow him. He has a real eye for good work, and I always learned a lot from his comments. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:49:06 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Did Picasso's talent and artistic success make the way he treated the women in his life OK? |
Picasso's treatment of women hardly compares to Paul's treatment of Margaret. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:50:48 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules? |
I do.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If YOU got a ticket asking you to edit a comment because it appeared to violate the Forum Rules, how would YOU have responded? |
That's entirely dependent on the comment. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:51:05 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Did Picasso's talent and artistic success make the way he treated the women in his life OK? |
Picasso's treatment of women hardly compares to Paul's treatment of Margaret. |
He didn't "treat" her...he commented on an image that she created. A significant difference. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:51:57 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Did Picasso's talent and artistic success make the way he treated the women in his life OK? |
Picasso's treatment of women hardly compares to Paul's treatment of Margaret. |
Maybe, maybe not, but the parallel of artistic talent somehow excusing poor behavior is there. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:52:51 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Did Picasso's talent and artistic success make the way he treated the women in his life OK? |
Picasso's treatment of women hardly compares to Paul's treatment of Margaret. |
He didn't "treat" her...he commented on an image that she created. A significant difference. |
Not really. |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 02:59:34 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules? |
I do. |
I do, too.
one of the MANY of Paul's that I like:
 |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 03:01:18 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules? |
I do. |
How/why? |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 03:02:37 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by Cuttooth:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules? |
I do. |
I do, too.
|
The more it's debated, the more benign the comment looks. And the more frustrating the situation gets. For me anyway... |
|
|
|
06/14/2012 03:05:25 PM · #225 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:54:25 PM EDT.
