PhotographyREVIEW.com Off-Topic Forum

Anything that's not related to photography, except religion and politics*. Discuss Britney Spears, your Kiss records, swing dancing, salsa recipes. The Off-Topic forum is moderated by walterick and adina.
*Religious and political threads will be deleted
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    bluesguy bluesguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    104

    Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Rather then taking a Draconian approach to the Religious/Political threads and closing them down and locked, could not the offenders deemed such by the mods suspended their access and posting abilities for some time frame as decided by an appropiate authority?
    Are we not throwing the "baby out with the bath water" Would love to hear the mods and or members views on "free speech" or the restriction of same.


    bluesguy :idea:

  2. #2
    Captain of the Ship Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
    Posts
    15,422

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Those subjects are taking up way too much of my time and energy. You guys don't see how much thought, effort and energy went into handling the problem. This action has been about a month in the works. I was very torn and tried to let things sort themselves out until it became clear that wasn't going to happen.

    I have more work than I can handle and I don't have time to babysit people who can't play nice. My energy needs to be going towards the business of the site, not micromanaging political and religious discussions. My solution is to eliminate the problem. The bottom line is this is a photography site. While it's nice to encourage people to get to know each other outside photography, allowing subjects that aren't related to the site divide and upset members is totally unacceptable. When I started to have members request I remove their accounts, the reality of the situation became clear to me. The good will and unity of the community comes first.
    Photo-John

    Your reviews are the foundation of this site - Write A Review!

  3. #3
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesguy
    Would love to hear the mods and or members views on "free speech" or the restriction of same.
    This isn't exactly a public place, it is owned by a private corporation and so I don't really know that free speech applies. Look, the original idea of Off Topic was to have a place for those of us active in this community to talk about things other than photography once in awhile. At first these threads were in Viewfinder, but eventually having this forum dedicated to OT was started. Many of us kind of knew each other, so to speak, and it was a respectful place whether debating music, lunch choices, or politics and religion.

    And then it began to take on a life of it's own... John's an employee, but as far as I know all of the other moderators (including yours truly) are unpaid volunteers. John, Adina and Rick had their hands full with the way things were going here, and I fully support this decision. This was a long-debated decision, and I think it's best that we just move on.

  4. #4
    bluesguy bluesguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    104

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    I am a relative new-comer to this forum and in that vein was not aware of any history pertaining to any rancor or disrespect toward any posters on the topic of religion or politics.
    I do agree that some sense of order has to be maintained and civility upheld, but having said that, how is sensitive topics determined and by whom? Oft-times one does not know how deep the water is until he is in it. Is religion and politics the only taboo topics or may there be more in the offing?

    bluesguy

  5. #5
    Senior Member Medley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR, USA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
    Those subjects are taking up way too much of my time and energy. You guys don't see how much thought, effort and energy went into handling the problem. This action has been about a month in the works. I was very torn and tried to let things sort themselves out until it became clear that wasn't going to happen.

    I have more work than I can handle and I don't have time to babysit people who can't play nice. My energy needs to be going towards the business of the site, not micromanaging political and religious discussions. My solution is to eliminate the problem. The bottom line is this is a photography site. While it's nice to encourage people to get to know each other outside photography, allowing subjects that aren't related to the site divide and upset members is totally unacceptable. When I started to have members request I remove their accounts, the reality of the situation became clear to me. The good will and unity of the community comes first.
    Then, with all due respect John, I submit that you're STILL micro-managing the problem. If you want to make the site all about photography, tthen make it all about photography.

    That is, eliminate the OT completely.

    Dont pussy-foot around the problem. Don't say talk about this, but not about that, go here but don't go there, do this, not that. That smacks of censorship and bias. The Off Topic sub-forum was created (I assume) to give people a place to talk about non-photography related matters. Now to me, it either IS that, or IT IS NOT.

    John, I have no doubt that dealing with such things can be a pain. I just feel that there are less subjective ways to deal with the problem rather than ban individual topics of discussion. If the Brittney Spears fans become bothersome, shall we then ban discussions of her as well?

    I've been a member in ( I presume) good standing for almost two years (Nov '06). I've tried to make positive contributions, and to refrain from contributing if I couldn't. I would personally HATE to see the OT forum disappear, but would prefer that over a rather random topic-by-topic blacklisting.

    And once you start down that slippery slope, where do you draw the line John? Case in point: the "is this man worthy to guide the ship of state: thread. In locking the thread, adina wrote:

    Here's the thing guys. If we could all act like grownups and keep things civil, there wouldn't need to be any guidelines. But since some of us have recently shown that we act like a bunch of two year olds and call names when someone disagrees with us, some guidelines have to be enforced.

    Recently, there have been some heated threads, and even after repeated reminders by the mods that personal attacks would not be tolerated, they continued.

    It has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is okay with us. It has everything to do with people getting personal and offending contributing members to the point that they ask for thier account to be deleted.
    I've re-read the entire thread, and can't find a single instance of a personal attack. the discussion had turned from the political, and wasn't even remotely religious. So I'm left wondering why, exactly, the thread was locked.

    Except, of course, that a mod objected to it. Guess we should make that list of banned topics a bit longer, eh?

    adina stated that some guidelines had to be enforced. I submit that the problem began not by enforcing the guidelines, but by changing them. Soon enough, that will be OK too- until the next time they're changed. So on it goes.

    John, it's your site, and you're entitled to do as you please. All I'm asking is that you treat ALL your members fairly. The easiest way to do that while getting you out from under this problem is to eliminate the OT completely. Any misgivings you have about that should apply equally to eliminating selected topics of discussion.

    I hope I haven't offended you or any of the mods John. You seem to want to make the site about photography. I'm fine with that. If you want to have an OT forum for non-photography related issues, I'm fine with that, too.

    You have posted guidelines for all of us to follow, and most of us have done so. adina is upset at a handful of members who have not abided by the guidelines, despite repeated warnings. But by changing the guidelines now, you and the mods are guilty of disregarding them as well, are you not? And THAT sir, is patently unfair to those of us who HAVE abided by the guidelines.

    The question is not wether or not you CAN do so- it's your website. Of course you can.

    The question is wether or not you SHOULD. The question for me personally is wether or not being fair to your members has any influence on your decisions. I believe it does John, or I wouldn't be wasting my time explaining my feelings on this.

    - Joe U.
    I have no intention of tiptoeing through life only to arrive safely at death.

  6. #6
    don't tase me, bro! Asylum Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle Florida
    Posts
    3,667

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesguy
    Rather then taking a Draconian approach to the Religious/Political threads and closing them down and locked, could not the offenders deemed such by the mods suspended their access and posting abilities for some time frame as decided by an appropiate authority?...
    FWIW, locking threads on online forums is standard operating procedure, and IMO no big deal. Anyone with any kind of online posting experience knows to expect it from time to time...

    To me, censoring and limiting members posting privileges would be the real Draconian approach...
    "Riding along on a carousel...tryin' to catch up to you..."

    -Steve
    Studio & Lighting - Photography As Art Forum Moderator

    Running the Photo Asylum, Asylum Steve's blogged brain pipes...
    www.stevenpaulhlavac.com
    www.photoasylum.com

  7. #7
    Captain of the Ship Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
    Posts
    15,422

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Medley
    Case in point: the "is this man worthy to guide the ship of state: thread. In locking the thread, adina wrote:
    I locked that thread. Not because it was in any way offensive. But because that's how I decided to handle all current political or religious threads. I could have just deleted them all. But I didn't want to do that. Future political and religious threads will just be deleted.
    Photo-John

    Your reviews are the foundation of this site - Write A Review!

  8. #8
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Yes this was the only way to remedy the situation. When administrators and mods have to spend their entire day monitoring a couple of religious threads then things are way out of hand. Banning religious and political threads is on par with many other discussion forums.

    When I tell you John had agonized over this for a very long time, believe it.

    And as for Brittney Spears, we'll take her on a case by case basis
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

  9. #9
    Moderator of Critiques/Hearder of Cats mtbbrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,972

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    As it has been said, this is a photography forum, and not a religious/political forum.
    It's pretty standard for any type of forum to keep on topic, which in the case of photographyreview.com is photography.
    Locking, deleting, or doing away with off topic threads is a way to keep this forum on topic, and not a way to censor or take away rights to free speech.
    Also, to back up what the others have said John has given this a lot of thought and has talked about it with all of the moderators.
    Brian
    Keep photographyreview.com on topic!
    :biggrin5:
    My "Personal" Photography Website...
    高手
    My Moderator Bio Page...
    Nikon Samurai #2 - Emeritus
    See more of my photography here...

    “A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed, and is, thereby, a true manifestation of what one feels about life in its entirety...” - Ansel Adams

    "Photography Is An Act Of Life" - Maine 2006

  10. #10
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    John's announcement was a closed thread - meaning nobody could reply to it - I think there's a reason for that...

  11. #11
    Princess of the OT adina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    rockin' it in the D
    Posts
    3,853

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    In my post that you quoted, I was refering to the handful of threads that occurred recently where things did get out of hand and personal attacks were made. I posted the response that you quoted, in answer to the question about why religion and politics were now off limits.

    This wasn't a "wake up one morning and ban these topics" decision. This was something that was discussed everytime a thread went south. And I don't think I can count the number of times Rick and I stated that personal attacks weren't allowed. And yet they continued. Had we been able to say "hey guys, keep it clean" and that be the end of it, there wouldn't be an issue. Should we have said "these people can talk about religion or politics, because they keep on topic, but these people get too heated, so they can't"?
    I sleep, but I don't rest.

  12. #12
    bluesguy bluesguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    104

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
    FWIW, locking threads on online forums is standard operating procedure, and IMO no big deal. Anyone with any kind of online posting experience knows to expect it from time to time...

    To me, censoring and limiting members posting privileges would be the real Draconian approach...
    Well now, I reckon that I just don't have a lot of online posting experience to draw upon to know that threads can/maybe locked or deleted by the mods of a given forum. So your idea of disciplining offending posters is to delete/lock the thread instead of reprimanding them eh? Isn't that a little like giving a criminal bail and probation so that they can do the crime again? If the offending poster knows that the harshest thing that will occurr to him is deletion/locking a topic/thread, where is the PUNISHMENT in that?

    bluesguy

  13. #13
    bluesguy bluesguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    104

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by adina
    In my post that you quoted, I was refering to the handful of threads that occurred recently where things did get out of hand and personal attacks were made. I posted the response that you quoted, in answer to the question about why religion and politics were now off limits.

    This wasn't a "wake up one morning and ban these topics" decision. This was something that was discussed everytime a thread went south. And I don't think I can count the number of times Rick and I stated that personal attacks weren't allowed. And yet they continued. Had we been able to say "hey guys, keep it clean" and that be the end of it, there wouldn't be an issue. Should we have said "these people can talk about religion or politics, because they keep on topic, but these people get too heated, so they can't"?
    In my opinion the offending posters should have been "called out" and their names published. A little public humilation and peer pressure may have handled the situation nicely, if not, punish them.


    bluesguy

  14. #14
    Captain of the Ship Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
    Posts
    15,422

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesguy
    In my opinion the offending posters should have been "called out" and their names published. A little public humilation and peer pressure may have handled the situation nicely, if not, punish them.
    People were banned, people decided to leave, PMs were sent, people thrreated to leave.The process was going on behind the scenes for about a month. Some of the people wouldn't have minded a public calling out. The decision is made. Time to move on.
    Photo-John

    Your reviews are the foundation of this site - Write A Review!

  15. #15
    Panarus biarmicus Moderator (Sports) SmartWombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,750

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    It was obvious who the offenders were - no need to call them out, they stood out.
    Yet they continued being offensive.
    So much so that I just stopped reading the OT forum completely.
    It certainly changed my opinion of a few people.

    I'm hoping in a while I'll have forgotten it all, and be able to read those offensive people's other photography related posts without thinking of their behaviour in the Off Topic threads.
    PAul

    Scroll down to the Sports Forum and post your sports pictures !

  16. #16
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
    The decision is made. Time to move on.
    :thumbsup: Yes. Please.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Medley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR, USA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mtbbrian
    As it has been said, this is a photography forum, and not a religious/political forum.
    It's pretty standard for any type of forum to keep on topic, which in the case of photographyreview.com is photography.
    Locking, deleting, or doing away with off topic threads is a way to keep this forum on topic, and not a way to censor or take away rights to free speech.
    Also, to back up what the others have said John has given this a lot of thought and has talked about it with all of the moderators.
    Brian
    Keep photographyreview.com on topic!
    :biggrin5:
    Right. Except I now direct your attention to the description of the Off Topic forum found at the top of the page:

    Discuss Britney Spears, your Kiss records, swing dancing, salsa recipes - anything that's not related to photography.
    Your argument sort of falls apart at that stage, does it not?? I must assume that the description came either from John himself, or from one of the mods. I sincerely doubt that any regular member has the ability to regulate such things.

    On a side note Brian, of course I understand the need to lock or delete threads from time to time. Such things are a necessary course of action, when there is some reason for it. But to say that future threads will be locked or deleted because they are about a legitimate topic that we simply can't be bothered to moderate, how is that NOT biased?

    So if it's truly about staying on topic, then the Off Topic forum is obsolete. How in the world do you keep the Off Topic forum "on topic" ????

    If PhotographyREVIEW.com DOES wish to keep the O.T. forum intact, then someone needs to find a solution that does not involve changing the very rules that the mods themselves set forth for everyone to follow. Either that, or explain that the rules only apply to us users. The mods simply make them up as they go.

    And if you think that that statement is unfair Brian, then understand that to me, holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself to is JUST AS UNFAIR!

    The weird thing about this is that I'm in complete agreement that the problem exists. I just disagree with the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the solution. In the past, I've seen everyone on this site, including the mods, work together to solve problems larger than this. Yet it offends you now that having the solution dictated to us, without any chance for input or discussion disturbs us. John tells us that our input and reviews are "the foundation of this site" - it's even in his sig- and then hands down an edict without so much as a word of member input. You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but that is definitely a change from the norm.

    I really think this is a short-term trend. If I pick up my local newspaper, about 90% of op-ed pieces are political in nature. In a month, they won't be, and it will be back to business as usual. I'm not sure that any long-term solution is even necessary. But let's assume for a moment that it's NOT a short-term trend. What about adding a few more mods to the O.T. to help alleviate the workload?

    One of the greatest methods I've ever seen for controlling this EXACT kind of problem was a system of warnings. Initially, a member was given a warning of 0%. They were given five chances- one warning jumped the "warn level to 20%, two to 40%, etc.- you get the idea. If you got to 100%, you were banned- period.

    The benefits of this system, as I saw them anyway, were twofold. First, nobody who was banned could say that they didn't see it coming. And second ( and this was the genius of the system, to me anyway), when a member got to a 60-80% warn level, they started playing much nicer.

    I think in the five years that I was active on that particular board, I only ever saw the warn levels go DOWN once. Such things were left to the mods though.

    So even if neither of these suggestions fit PR's tastes, the point is that they are just two suggestion from one member. I ask you to consider allowing your members to put their collective heads together. Don't we deserve that much?

    - Joe U.
    I have no intention of tiptoeing through life only to arrive safely at death.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Anbesol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,430

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    I'm hoping in a while I'll have forgotten it all, and be able to read those offensive people's other photography related posts without thinking of their behaviour in the Off Topic threads.
    Well, I was undoubtedly one of those offenders, but I was also one of those who had probably more than anyone else, had those personal attacks directed towards me. Even still, I remained open to reading the threads and posts of those people who directed attacks towards me without any negative filter, just because I happen to disagree with their religious and/or political values, doesn't mean they aren't damned good photographers with a great expertise on the subject, which by and large I think they are. I may have been juvenile enough to reduce my speech to personal attacks, but at least not enough to hold some grudge against them and ignore their other posts because of such. I think its quite dramatic and silly to be unable to read someone elses posts because sometime in the past they said something juvenile or controversial in the OT forum.

    I am a bit confused though, someone left the forums because of this? As far as I know, there were 3 people 'involved' who left, all 3 of which were not here for photography in the least but to troll the religious and political threads anyway. Was there a genuine member who actually was compelled to leave as a result of this?

    :idea: Another thought though - political discourse 3 weeks prior to one of the biggest elections in American history, is bound to be heated, divisive, argumentative and such. Perhaps there could be a temporary ban on political threads until the election is up and the populace calms down. Perhaps another thing that could have been done, is requiring a 50 post minimum to post in OT, to make sure that people come here for photography purposes, not just to sign up and partake in the heated debates, which was a problem with the recent religious/political threads anyways. But, I dont own or control the boards, if its the decision to not have religious/political threads, then I will respect and honor that.


    Anyway, FWIW....
    - Charlie

    Feel free to edit and repost my work as a part of your critique.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Medley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR, USA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
    The decision is made. Time to move on.

    Indeed John. It does seem to be time to move on........ Until recently, this was a great site. But now, the opinion of the mods matter, and the opinions of the members don't.

    You may consider this a formal request to delete my account here. If my input only means something when you agree with it, then it is indeed time to move on.

    One last piece of advice. I'd consdier changing the Off Topic description that I quoted in my last post- your slip is showing. The O.T. is no longer about "anything not related to photography".
    - Joe U.
    Last edited by Medley; 10-15-2008 at 08:09 PM.
    I have no intention of tiptoeing through life only to arrive safely at death.

  20. #20
    Princess of the OT adina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    rockin' it in the D
    Posts
    3,853

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Anbesol

    I am a bit confused though, someone left the forums because of this? As far as I know, there were 3 people 'involved' who left, all 3 of which were not here for photography in the least but to troll the religious and political threads anyway. Was there a genuine member who actually was compelled to leave as a result of this?

    ....
    Yes, that is exactly what happened. Contributing members have left. Which is why action has been taken.
    I sleep, but I don't rest.

  21. #21
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    Re: Rebuttal to closing the OT Religious & Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Anbesol
    if its the decision to not have religious/political threads, then I will respect and honor that.
    Thank you

    We're still a great photography site and we still have a great off-topic forum, now with the modification that religion and politics are off-limits. That leaves about a billion subjects we have left to discuss
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •