What's the point of posting?

Joe/Kim,

 

As I read the above screeds, I find that you are claiming to abide by Brian's decisions, and yet you are still here on someone else's account. You are banned from the site, and claim to respect Brian's banning you, and yet you continue to post your claims to being respectful and so on... and on ... and on

 

Why are you still here? I see it as yet another example of Brian being long-suffering and agreeable - if it were up to me, I would ban this account too. Why not just go away? You are surely not going to convince Brian, nor much of anyone else.

I logged in under my WIFE's account. We share the same computer Jeremy. The ONLY reason I logged in under ANY account other than my own is because mine was banned without warning.

 

I logged in to post 2 statements.

 

#1. That I hadn't made myself clear that I would abide by Brian's decision whatever that was and that

 

#2. If my account was permanently banned that I needed my folder deleted and a refund for the remainder of my membership or proof that this policy against asking friends to honestly rate / critique photos was in writing before this date.

 

It's that simple. I'm sorry you don't understand that but I meant no trouble / disrespect /whatever by it towards Brian or anyone else.

Joe, Brian, and Jeremy,

It really is unfortunate that Joe got banned a day or two before the Top Photo page changes its criteria from "number of rating" to "average rating" (should've been that way a long time ago.) The new average rating set up will undoubtedly render the "high number of rating" virtually useless. However, it's a sad situation that a valuable, generally positive member had been forever banded, and again, what?s equally sad is that this fiasco could?ve been avoided had the change came a tad sooner. Frankly, who would've thought from reading this thread last week that it would result in this.

I think the whole thing is silly. I didn't rate much. I think I popped in on a few occasions when Joe sent me a link so I guess I was one of those "biased" people that got Joe booted. I always rated his photos as honestly as possible and I think my ratings were never far of from the average. I also rated a few other peoples shots in the critique section but I work and don't have a lot of time for web browsing. Sad to see him go.

An interesting thread. Over the years "ratings" threads always seem to come up. People have accused others of manipulating the site to improve ratings on their photos. This one takes a situation from beginning to banned where we see how one member accomplished this feat. I totally agree with the expulsion. There have to be rules and they are useless if not enforced. But somehow I feel bad. The irony is while Joe's photo's are not the best on the site they are still pretty decent and would of had good ratings anyway. But there is a certain "rush" seeing ones photos on the (former)TRP page. Almost like a drug habit with a certain withdrawal if they don't appear again.

Gerald, I appreciate your civility. I would agree with any banning where the "rules" are completely clear and stated prior. I have promoted this site (even after banning) to scores of my friends and honestly never thought sending my friends a link to see, comment, and rate one of my photos was "Wrong" or "against the rules." There certainly no rules that clearly stated when you sign up. Perhaps they are somewhere on the site but certainly not a part of the sign up process.

 

My friends honestly rated my photos (as demonstrated above by a .37 deviation from the overal ratings.) so to say it was a "ratings manipulation." would be inaccurate (not that you did.)

 

At any rate, my photos are still being displayed against my wishes. I've asked for them to be removed both in forum and by e-mail. I'm not angry with Brian or any one else on the site. They have a tough job. I don't want to continue logging in under my wife's account (not rating or commenting at all just so everyone knows.) but I must do so to monitor how long my photos will be displayed against my wishes. Personally, I think the whole thing has been a bit ridiculous.

Read the Terms of Use. It's link is on the bottom of every page on the site.

Thanks for posting Richard. I signed up using my work account (which I can't use often here) just to see the information again. When signing up there is nothing about rules of any sort and under terms of use I found nothing relevant to this thread. Could you perhaps point me to something? I read a good deal of it and found nothing relating.

 

Even with that considered, don't you think that behavior that will get you booted from photo.net (especially when you have paid money to be here) should be clearly documented?

This, coupled with the warning from Brian above is what lead to the expulsion.....

 

>>>Although photo.net cannot monitor all the postings in the chat rooms, forums, photo galleries and other public areas, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to delete, move, or edit any postings that come to our attention that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate, of for any other other reasons, which we need not disclose, and which need not be reasonable. We will not, in the ordinary course of business, review private electronic messages that are not addressed to photo.net. However, we will comply with the requirements of the law regarding disclosure of such messages to others, including law enforcement agencies.

 

Access

We retain the right to deny access to anyone who we believe has violated the term of this agreement, or to anyone else for any reasons, which we need not disclose, or for no reason. <<<<

 

....Jay

and the reason they are not deleting your images is most likely this:

 

>>>>by submitting the material, You grant photo.net and its successors or assigns a perpetual non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to publish that material on the World Wide Web as part of the photo.net web site for the purpose of operating, displaying, distributing and promoting the Site<<<<

Joe, I don't know how long you were banned for but would assume after a period of good behavior (IMO your continued posting under assumed or new accounts would not constitute this)PN would let you back in. So my advise is just let this issue go. Go out and take photos. The fact that your photos are still here is a good thing. So if you are allowed back after a few months you won't have to start over again. So just sit in the corner for a while and be a good boy.

Thanks Gerald. The only account I was using was my wifes and as I said that was just to monitor the situation. My work account is for work only and I can't get any e-mail at that address so I'm VERY reluctant to use the account here but I thought it was better than using my wifes. At any rate, I'm neither submitting, critiquing, or rating in respect to the ban. I'm sure Jeremy will probbaly see this as further sign of my extreme rebellious nature but what do I do? My stuff is still displayed.

 

I agree that IF they are going to reinstate me that me photo's being displayed is a good thing. However, if they are not going to reinstate me, then my photos being displayed against my wishes is a very bad thing. I just hope that Jeremy, Brian, and whoever else has influence / power on this site sees that I'm not trying to cause trouble.

 

It has kinda floored me that without warning and without reimbursement on a paid membership or ANY form of communication someone can be banned. I've written e-mails and I've written here and have yet to be contacted. Eventually, if I can't get my photos removed and a reimbursement (or clear demonstration that the rules were in place and accessible BEFORE this), I'm going to have to start complaining to other sources. I REALLY don't want that. It's definitely not meant in some threatening manner, but what else do I do? I really dig this site and the people here and last thing I want is for something this small to get ugly.

 

At any rate... I'll be in the corner... attempting to be good.

Jay and Richard, I appreciate your pointing me to some of the documentation.

 

Jay, I saw the part you posted. Specifically, "we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to delete, move, or edit any postings that come to our attention that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate, of for any other other reasons, which we need not disclose, and which need not be reasonable." I thought about that quite a bit. It doesn't really seem to address blocking a paid member from deleting his photos because of a rule that I haven't seen anywhere. It seems to address their right to "move, edit, or delete" becuase of inapproriate or unacceptable... My work hasn't been delted, edited, or whatever, but I have been blocked from my work.

 

The part about being able to display someone's work indefinitely becuase they posted it here is really kinda scary. Does it seem right that if a user wants his work removed that they can say sorry... you posted it so we can display it as long as we like? I wonder how legal that is?

 

At any rate, I didn't want to not acknowledge your efforts in finding the material so thank you.

Joe, you're like the little kid that won't stop talking. So his mother says Joe I want to see if you can stop talking for 5 minutes then you can talk again. So little Joe after a minute or two can't help himself and starts talking again. So the mother says you you have to start all over again. Again little Joe can't help himself and the process starts all over again. Sound familiar? Just give it up. As I suggested start all over again and go sit in the corner. Maybe in a few months if you are a good boy they will let you back in. Hopefully you can help yourself.

Lighten up Gerald! Your analogy here is ridiculous. The guy is simply explaining his side. His pictures are still up, but he has been banned. I completely understand his point of view. He has said he WILL abide by the rules now that he understands them. Next move would be from Photo.net. Can he stay then, or does he go...completely pics and all?? The next move is not up to you Gerald.

 

Joe, I personally find your points of view, as as well as your stated concerns here as being very reasonable. You posted your own images, asked your friends to look them over (okay not the absolute best judgement there since they all rated away...but nothing all THAT bad either). You have agreed not to do that again. AND, have been very civil about the entire matter. If Photo.net feels that what you did was such a terrible thing, then thats the end of the road for you and not much anybody can do about it. It is clear to me that you did not intentionally try to *break the rules* so to speak. So hopefully the powers that run this place will show a little compassion here with you and give you another opportunity. If not, well not much you can do... unfairness is just a normal part of everyday living.

Good Lord! Thank you Vincent. I was beginning to think everyone thought like Gerald. No disrespect meant - but if your images were being displayed without your consent or your ability to delete them Gerald, you might sing a different tune.

 

Just so you know Gerald, the images can't be viewed if you are just browsing the site and not logged in. Thus, my reasons for logging in and checking the status and keeping up with thoughts here.

 

Your analogy about the kid in the corner (while humorous) is not entirely correct. It would be more accurately stated to say that strangers are asking the kid questions and when the kid responds another stranger who has been observing the situation states that the time in the corner has been restarted due to the kids inability to not respond.

Gerald it sounds like your are the one who should stop talking. You sound pretty impressed with yourself.

Speaking from personal experience, I came across the site, registered, payed my $25, rated a few photos, visited fairly sporadically for a while then forgot about the place. I came back the other day looking for some advice on some things, uploaded a few more photos, rated a few more and posted a few things in the forum.

 

Some of my behaviour looks as if it may attract the attentions of the 'bot', which I can assure you is unwarrented. I would dearly hope that my ratings are not inaccurate just because I'm not trawling through hundreds of photos week on week?

 

As has been raised, it's not our place to make policy but does basic maths not say an average is as accurate as its magnitude, not the absolute quality of its contributions?

Ian, bots don't pay subsription fees..

 

And besides, what you describe is a common form of usage, and I wouldn't expect the software to identify it as a bot pattern anyway.

 

Bots, and dummy accounts have certain quite clearly distinguishing patterns that set them apart from honest human users. Sure, one can make a bot or false account look like a legitimate user, but that takes some effort, and for someone to create a dozen such accounts and keep them live ling enough, the effort would not be worth it. I'm sure there would be at least one person obsessed enough to do this here, but with anonymity in the interenet you have to even expect and accept that.

Actually, Ian's type of use is exactly like the use that the majority of my friends who signed up. The only difference is his paying $25. Some of my friends occasionally uploaded images but most sporadically used and rated the site. So, I think his would be a target for having his ratings wiped as well.