- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dear oh dear
and help to keep the site free for all
Threads locked, again
- Thread starter dod
- Start date
- Status
Dear oh dear
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Golly. I hope you don't come down with anything too catching as with your social life you could infect half the internet
You have to remember I'm used to be very over active on the forum, but also I tend not to limit myself to just local meets, I've attended meets locally but also in Kent, Norfolk (needed shots after that one
) and Yorkshire all of which were several hours drive, then I've also attended national meets in the form of the mega meet at Blackpool, was supposed to be at the last two but personal and car troubles got in the way So that's the reason I've met so many
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree if you cannot see the cross humour
yes oh dear, oh dear
and there lies the problem, words not meanings
just look how this thread has developed with the aid of the Moderators and (members)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh I can get humor
You were not being humorous though and a post edit doesn't change that
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We'll see below, maybe not to the same magnitude as me but there's probably others that have met the same levels as me, some probably more, I know a few years ago some of the London meets were massive with dozens attending...some of the meets I've arranged have had 20-30 people or more on them too the social aspect is certainly there if you want to find it
- Messages
- 2,016
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- No
What is the point in this sort of debate in a photography forum?
I'm a member of other forums where politics,religion et al are banned because of the strife they can cause and that certainly helps bring in new members from afar.
I never used to bother about such and it never interfered with meeting a like minded soul but to have cast, personal views on the state of play of the geographic politics et al,surely puts one off
I'm a member of other forums where politics,religion et al are banned because of the strife they can cause and that certainly helps bring in new members from afar.
I never used to bother about such and it never interfered with meeting a like minded soul but to have cast, personal views on the state of play of the geographic politics et al,surely puts one off
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,714
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
... that's the reason I've met so many
I went on a meet and shoot with another forum years ago and I'd like to do more. I'll have to watch out for any in my area but the chances of going to any further away are pretty remote as a lot of my time is taken up and getting away for a day is often difficult.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
I really don't see why though.
There are so very many other parts of the forums that all anyone has to do is to NOT look at or participate in the threads that they find "objectionable".
It really is that simple.
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that the discussion on this thread illustrates how other subjects are brought in, (IMHO it is quite ironic), but as a Mod said, "thread Morph" - whatever that means - maybe they should not Morph in a negative way and the purpose of moderation is to stop this ........... I believe that the thread in question may have been "locked" because of "non-photographic" comments and as you say many Forum ban such - Moderators seem to put the blame at the feet of members, I am exploring if that is really true.
It would be nice to know why the thread in question was blocked and for what reason, plus why it was felt to warn the members of the Bird Forum about their behaviour
It is no good constantly discussing such similar issues unless they are resolved, banning members does not IMHO resolve the issues
Last edited:
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,605
- Edit My Images
- No
Bill
I've looked at the "warning" posted in the bird forum. It seems very clear to me.
1. It alerts members to this thread, a thread about the forum as a whole.
2. It states the reason for posting it I the bird forum.
I'm struggling to see why you're pushing this.
I've looked at the "warning" posted in the bird forum. It seems very clear to me.
1. It alerts members to this thread, a thread about the forum as a whole.
2. It states the reason for posting it I the bird forum.
I'm struggling to see why you're pushing this.
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
Simon, It is very simple, I am pushing this because after a considerable time and with considerable effort I thought that the problems in the Bird Section had been resolved with the acceptance of all, and to the satisfaction of the majority. We have all "fallen into line" or fallen away - I now see a direct inference this morning in the Bird Section that all may not be well and all I have asked is for a justification of this........ as far as I am aware no one from that section has been banned
After all this effort on the part of many I really do see it as an insult, (IMHO), that the Bird section should be linked to what has caused this thread to be started.
As far as I am concerned the Bird Section is now fine it is the other Sections of the Forum that maybe need to be addressed, but I do not have any knowledge of this but I can see why after looking at the comments that have been addressed to me in this thread.
As you can probably know I only really post it the Bird Section so that is my prime concern
I thought that I was a reasonable sort of guy, but judging by the comments in this thread, I am not
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,016
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- No
I think i'm coming from a moderator/newbie view point,in that certain slants just don't seem to be fitting.
Believe me, i'm not averse to polarised opinions and debate but for newcomers having a look see, i think a lot of posts could be very off putting.
Yes, they could ignore that which they don't like and i do but first impressions....etc
Believe me, i'm not averse to polarised opinions and debate but for newcomers having a look see, i think a lot of posts could be very off putting.
Yes, they could ignore that which they don't like and i do but first impressions....etc
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Check out the meeting place section there's pretty much always something being arranged
- Messages
- 3,724
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldn't say I've met anywhere near as many as Matt, but I've also been to about half a dozen meets, always had fun and everyone is friendly and willing to help out others
You have your answer though - several times; it was based upon historical rates of 'RTM' incidents. Whether that is sufficient reason is perhaps subjective, but is it the reason, and nothing will change that, and you can't realistically expect the Mods to enter into a debate over whether or not their criteria for selection are the most appropriate in this context because there is nothing to be gained from it. In other words it would not further the discussion.
Now, let me be the first to say that from an individual context, ie, perhaps yours, having put in significant time and effort into making that area a better place, this can feel like a 'slap in the face', I understand that and can sympathise. You made your point clear much earlier in the thread and that was clearly understood, and point having been made, perhaps it would be good to allow the discussion to move into areas new, rather than keep bringing it back to the top.
On the wider discussion context, I like the variety of discussions across TP, and would rather not see subjects banned. There are individuals who clearly and consistently push a view that I don't agree with, some more eloquently that others, but that's rather the point of discussion or debate. It would be rather boring if we all agreed!
Obvious trolls are, well obvious, and a community administered 'lack of feeding' should be enough to kill those threads quickly, and surely that responsibility is in our heads not the mods.
For the few 'Honey Trappers' - those who live just below the 'unacceptable' threshold, looking to build the 'red-mist' level in others until they respond inappropriately, that level of systematic abuse needs to be the domain of the mods to sort out I think.
To be clear I'm talking here about behaviours, not points of view; please, please, please let's keep our variety in opinions as wide as possible, but let's focus only on those who behave inappropriately in expressing their viewpoint.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well said. (Actually your whole post was very good but quoting the whole thing takes up too much real estate.)
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
David, I have tried to develop the discussion, please read the thread before the thread you commented on ........ quoted above ....... and some of my others
I think that there is an expression, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the situation to change"
Things changed in the Bird Section, and it should be used as an example of change not a section to be warned, IMHO the Mods made a mistake in their posting in that section which is confusing rather than helpful
The Mods seem to put all the "blame" on Members ..... maybe it starts there .... the Forum is then told by the Mods to act like adults and several members jump on the Mods band wagon, (as usual), in a sanctimonious sort of way ......... what I am suggesting or implying is that the Mods also review their behaviour and rules and regs as IMHO one of the way to improve the situation is to do this. There are simple ways to deal with racist or anti religious comments and there are well tried methods on other forums to deal which such. Also I feel that they should be careful not to generalise over the Forum and I use the Bird Section as an illustration...... such cases are specific not general.
IMHO, you do me a dis-service if you feel that my comments simply relate the the Bird Section, even though that is my main interest on this Forum........ these issues have been discussed many many times before whilst I have been a member, IMHO the situation has not improved and it is not as simple as using the words Adult or blaming members ..... no progress has been made generally in this direction and the reasons should be identified...... there will be a constant problems for the Mods unless they sort it effectively
Am I trying to help, yes? ...... my contribution is as a member ..........but maybe it is now a lost cause ......... banning, using the word ban and associated measures will not help, they are a very small sticking plaster to a situation that should be controlled by effective moderation, (and I do not use this to insult or criticise the Mods),.......... Using the "like" button and gaining mod points, and being part of the mod "groupie" set also do not help the situation ....... as I have indicated the word "adult" can be used in many a context.
I do not have the answers but the situation is under the control of the "Mods" or at least it should be and I have yet to see how they will change such situations and I suppose at this time I have more confidence in the vast majority of the members than anyone else ...... as IMHO the only thing that happens is that a sticking plaster is pulled out every month....... and "we children" are threatened with a big "banning" stick.
It is now pointless for me to continue to contribute to this thread as my views are not shared by anyone in this thread; no progress is being made and as a few have said "there comes a time when you give up and go away"........ I am sure that this will come as a relief to you all
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
John 8:7 ....... I think
Tigger.ufo
Lady Penelope
- Messages
- 5,924
- Name
- Heather
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 7,571
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Correct. You've got an opinion and you're entitled to it and you've had the opportunity to express it. If there's any of it we consider valid we'll take it on board.
That depends on your viewpoint, we see the ones who feel they have been pushed away.
This isn't about banning people, although it may well end up with that as the ultimate sanction, it's absolutely about telling people that we're not prepared to accept the ongoing disrespectful and disruptive behaviours.
Last edited:
First off, you feel I'm doing you a disservice, so let me be clear; that is not the intention.
As with all things subjective, when I pen a reply, I am sharing what I consider to be true based on my individual context. I do so because I feel it may in some way inform a discussion and may influence the individual context of another.
I do not believe there is an absolute truth necessarily (sometimes there is, sometimes there really isn't) and I accept that other people's individual context may differ significantly from mine and hence their expressed views may differ also.
I enjoy reading the discussions and debates because when others share their views, I may use it to supplement my own view. I'm not on a crusade to convert others my my way of thinking, I'm looking to draw out the thought process so that I may enrich my own understanding.
So, that said, language such as adult and children are challenging in such discussions. They carry different meanings to different people but more importantly, they carry an emotional element too, and that can influence how react.
I know I do for example. When someone says to me "What you need to do is...", it automatically gets my back up because, to me, that's very close to my own adult / child relationship when I was always been told what to do any not listened to. I'm certain in 90% of cases when I hear that phrase at work today that is not the intention of the speaker but I have to catch myself as I get temporarily a little less intelligent when I hear it!
A key principle I have found useful in influencing behaviour is "Give attention to what you want more of"; focus on the behaviours you want to see more of.
In the context of this discussion, and to take your point perhaps, it might be more productive to highlight an example of a sub-forum that's working well. Focussing on the behaviours you want typically has a greater positive impact than focussing on those you don't. There are several studies out there that actually show that focussing on unwanted behaviours can actually increase the incidence.
It's really difficult to influence behaviours generally, and so much harder without face to face contact, magnified a hundred fold with the added relative anonymity of the Internet. It's a fascinating area to observe, and I don't think the Mods have a magical book of answers they can use to solve this, but I do welcome their efforts, and if they stumble along the way (as we all doubtless will), I certainly won't hold it against them.
SarahLee
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 13,060
- Name
- Sarah
- Edit My Images
- No
Just a couple of words about how forums work . . .
The rules / direction / strategy of the forum is decided by admin (the owners of the forum).
Moderators apply that strategy and ensure that threads stay within those rules (noting that every moderator here is also a member)
Members provide the thread content and if they overstep the rules, there are consequences.
Now instead of shunting the blame between one another, people really need to take responsibility for their own part in this.
Every time that there's a change in rules / direction, we go through this same loop where there are members who want to push the boundaries to see where the new lines are set.
We're going through it with the automation of the classifieds rules and we're going through it with the change in the no religion/poltics rule in oof.
I don't like to see topics censored or banned and I'm all for open discussion within the forums, but it's worth bearing in mind that never, in the history of the internet EVER has somebody had a conversion of their religious or political beliefs as a result of somebody else's posts on a discussion board (Caveat: possibly a slight exaggeration) Members really need to bear that in mind and not take things so personally in the threads in question.
And it's no good saying, "nobody told me I shouldn't say that so I thought it was OK". You're responsible for the content you post on the forum.
From a site staff point of view, the rule about no politics/religion in OOF was removed and I think we were very naive in thinking that the threads would self-moderate and posters would stay within the existing forum rules.
Obviously that isn't the case and it seems that we weren't clear enough on where the boundaries are.
@dod (as well as several others who have subsequently posted) have now made that perfectly clear.
Again, from a moderation perspective we were also naive in thinking that the laid back friendly approach that we usually take to moderating would work with these changes.
It doesn't and that has to change if OOF is going to remain open for discussion on politics/religion.
I think this thread has also made that abundantly clear.
Edit: (I got pulled away while I was typing)
The irony of some of the backbiting in this particular thread isn't lost on me, but we go through this too every time that there's a change.
Things will settle back down with everyone knowing what the stance is going forward . . . and I think that it's probably about time for that to start happening.
The rules / direction / strategy of the forum is decided by admin (the owners of the forum).
Moderators apply that strategy and ensure that threads stay within those rules (noting that every moderator here is also a member)
Members provide the thread content and if they overstep the rules, there are consequences.
Now instead of shunting the blame between one another, people really need to take responsibility for their own part in this.
Every time that there's a change in rules / direction, we go through this same loop where there are members who want to push the boundaries to see where the new lines are set.
We're going through it with the automation of the classifieds rules and we're going through it with the change in the no religion/poltics rule in oof.
I don't like to see topics censored or banned and I'm all for open discussion within the forums, but it's worth bearing in mind that never, in the history of the internet EVER has somebody had a conversion of their religious or political beliefs as a result of somebody else's posts on a discussion board (Caveat: possibly a slight exaggeration) Members really need to bear that in mind and not take things so personally in the threads in question.
And it's no good saying, "nobody told me I shouldn't say that so I thought it was OK". You're responsible for the content you post on the forum.
From a site staff point of view, the rule about no politics/religion in OOF was removed and I think we were very naive in thinking that the threads would self-moderate and posters would stay within the existing forum rules.
Obviously that isn't the case and it seems that we weren't clear enough on where the boundaries are.
@dod (as well as several others who have subsequently posted) have now made that perfectly clear.
Again, from a moderation perspective we were also naive in thinking that the laid back friendly approach that we usually take to moderating would work with these changes.
It doesn't and that has to change if OOF is going to remain open for discussion on politics/religion.
I think this thread has also made that abundantly clear.
Edit: (I got pulled away while I was typing)
The irony of some of the backbiting in this particular thread isn't lost on me, but we go through this too every time that there's a change.
Things will settle back down with everyone knowing what the stance is going forward . . . and I think that it's probably about time for that to start happening.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes we do ask a few people to play nice and act their age at times, do we really need to write a dissertation that explains if you ( whoever) continues to personally attack another member
by calling their parentage into question or using some backhanded or veiled threat, if they continue they may well find themselves on a short break.
Is it possible that the members in question actually agree with what we are saying? / trying to do getting the thread back from a slanging match /, willy waving contest?
You forgot to add the words "Recently"
After a certain "clear out", ( 18 moths ago) the bird section settled down for quite awhile, most other fractious members took the hint,
from that action and from the "guide lines" that Yvonne wrote, however a few never took the hint and Matt had to reiterate the "rules" in a further post.
The birding section is the only forum that has one of these, save OoF, but then OoF is the only forum where almost anything goes,
its not a caring sharing help others with their photography.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ting-on-tp-please-read-before-posting.513874/
- Messages
- 12,709
- Edit My Images
- No
@Cobra
1). I did not think that I or anyone in the Bird Section have ever done that "by calling their parentage into question or using some backhanded or veiled threat" - I have never seen such in the Bird Section, we discuss "bird images" that's all - but maybe I have mis read your comment
2). They certainly do - in fact more who respond do
3). Recently - accepted - but if my recollection is correct it has been "some time" - but I was not aware, even 18 months ago that anyone has been banned - again maybe I did not state it clearly, IMHO the action taken by the Moderators has worked in the Bird Section, (albeit not to the complete satisfaction of everyone, from both (member) sides), and I was saying that such should be used as an example of what has been achieved rather than through implication and a direct posting that there is a need to warn the Bird Section again ....... that is the perspective that I came from
1). I did not think that I or anyone in the Bird Section have ever done that "by calling their parentage into question or using some backhanded or veiled threat" - I have never seen such in the Bird Section, we discuss "bird images" that's all - but maybe I have mis read your comment
2). They certainly do - in fact more who respond do
3). Recently - accepted - but if my recollection is correct it has been "some time" - but I was not aware, even 18 months ago that anyone has been banned - again maybe I did not state it clearly, IMHO the action taken by the Moderators has worked in the Bird Section, (albeit not to the complete satisfaction of everyone, from both (member) sides), and I was saying that such should be used as an example of what has been achieved rather than through implication and a direct posting that there is a need to warn the Bird Section again ....... that is the perspective that I came from
Last edited:
SarahLee
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 13,060
- Name
- Sarah
- Edit My Images
- No
And on that note, I think it's time to put this one to bed.
Everyone who had something to say has made their feelings known, staff have replied to the relevant points and the boundaries around acceptable postings in OOF plus the consequences for overstepping them have been made clear.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
You have not miss-read my comments, I now note when you joined, which would have been pretty much the "height of the troubles"
and you most likely would have missed a lot of the background and possibly not understood the implications sly digs and other things that were going on around you
After all you couldn't possibly have read every single thread, seen the like button used to continue "an argument" even after the thread was locked.
It got so bad that we even considered removing the like button because of the behaviour of a few.
I think we know why now ( as above)
- Status