Off Topic Forum

<blockquote>

<p>"I can't imagine a world without polemics and polemicists!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps that's part of the problem. I'd rather imagine a world of classical rhetoric and efforts at the art of persuasion. If more folks engaged each other in that model the OT forum might have succeeded.</p>

<p>I'll quote from the community director of another site I used to visit over 10 years ago. They tried an off topic forum too, and in late 2008 banned hot button topics on politics, religion, etc.:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Due to the divisive nature of recent political and religious discussions on this forum, discussions on those subjects will no longer be allowed on the Off-Topic forum. I'm closing all political and religious discussions and any new threads will be deleted or closed, depending on the nature of the discussion. Sorry about that. I tried to let things take care of themselves, but it quickly became obvious that we can't handle those subjects in a reasonable and respectful way. So rather than let those two topics distract and divide this wonderful community, I've decided that we will no longer allow them here. <em>It would be nice to see some of the energy that goes into religious and political argument be applied to camera discussion instead.</em>" --<a href="http://forums.photographyreview.com/off-topic/politics-religion-off-limits-48194.html">Photo-John, PhotographyReview</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me repeat his last sentence:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"<em>It would be nice to see some of the energy that goes into religious and political argument be applied to camera discussion instead.</em>"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When was the last time you contributed anything to the photography aspect of photo.net? What's the ratio of your OT forum activity to photography related activity?</p>

<p>Or are you only here for the polemics?</p>

<p>Polemics are easy. Anyone can do that. And most of our OT forum polemicists indulged too often in the commonest logical fallacies, increasingly as a first rather than last resort. It wasn't even a good outlet for honing ones debate skills. It was mostly soapbox posturing and shouting, spouting of talking points memorized from our personal favorite propagandists. We can get that anywhere from anyone with a keyboard.</p>

<p>Rhetoric and persuasion demand real skill and a command of not only the subject matter but of personal restraint and the ability to actually hear what others are saying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Genuine polemics approach a book as lovingly as a cannibal spices a baby." --<em>Walter Benjamin</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Walter Benjamin also wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now *that's* a helluva lot more interesting proposition to ponder than anything I've read in five years on the OT forum about politics, most of which I'd already read in the news papers and commentary and policy magazines and sites I follow. In five years I never once learned anything about politics and hot button issues that I didn't already know or couldn't have found on my own.</p>

<p>I'd rather hear about what else we're passionate about. And if it's only politics... good grief. Take me off your dinner list. I get enough of that already from my real life acquaintances.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't true at all. This an incredible amount of confrontation, strong language and adult topics all over the web, particularly on political and news sites. That has nothing to do with photo.net though, which is supposed to be a photography site. Maybe you missed the name of the site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your best sarcasm? Wonderful attempt. No Jeff, I didn't miss the name of the site at all. I am a <strong>photographer</strong>...AND I am a polemicist, artist, reader, observer of human nature, philosopher, engineer, inventor, writer, movie maker, entrepreneur, chef, traveler, engaged citizen, adventurer, husband, volunteer, and part time rabble rouser. In other words, your typical human being. May Zeus strike me stone dead when the day comes that all I can contemplate and engage my mind with is, <em>what new camera to buy? </em>The only reason I have interest in making photographs is that I am fascinated with the broader universe, and it's variety of inhabitants. I learn such matters by engaging the world in adult subjects, not asking them what f-stop they used to make a photograph. </p>

<p>Why this web site? I am not nearly as interested in the strong opinions of say, potters or weavers, as I am in <em>photographers</em>. I didn't create the web site, I just joined and posted in the places already provided. If you didn't want an OT, you shouldn't have made one! That's easy, isn't it? If I got this right now, the owners of the site don't like what they created, and are now mad at the people who post on it? </p>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd rather imagine a world of classical rhetoric and efforts at the art of persuasion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that's nothing but a difference of opinion and taste then isn't it? It's about as useful as saying, "I prefer only moral arguments that are rooted in a Supreme Creator." So what? So you prefer <em>classical rhetoric</em> (but don't employ it, as far as I can tell). Are you the arbiter of style AND content? Polemics has played a major role in the development of modern civilization, and will continue to do so. Many of history's most influential writers and thinkers were polemicists. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now *that's* a helluva lot more interesting proposition to ponder than anything I've read in five years on the OT forum about politics, most of which I'd already read in the news papers and commentary and policy magazines and sites I follow. In five years I never once learned anything about politics and hot button issues that I didn't already know or couldn't have found on my own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once more - -so what? What you are saying is that if you know it, or if you have heard it, it need not be said to anyone else. Really? You're the sole arbiter also of what qualifies as new or interesting positions, or information, or opinions? I too can learn any of this on my own. Here, let me not exaggerate. Here's a quote from a photographic post today regarding the Contax 139Q:"It's hard to go wrong with either of the Carl Zeiss 50 mm lenses (1.7 or 1.4). The 25mm Distagon is expensive but excellent. But if watching budget the Yashica primes are a good value." Now there's a thrilling photographic detail. But, since I have already owned a Contax 139 and a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7, and a bevy of Yashica lenses, I already know this information, because, "I learned it on my own." So what do I do when I come upon this? Lecture they guy for posting stuff that, "I can learn myself," or do I do the common sense thing and move on to the NEXT POST under the commonly understood and pithy sentiment, "Read this, skip that."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's wonderful that you found that to be so intriguing and thought provoking! But I learned that at age 20, after the third roll of film through my first camera. I am not bragging Mr. Jenkins, but this is once more to point out that simple differences of opinion, experience, preference, or viewpoint, are not usually very profound. Will you just delete all the posts containing information that YOU already know?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd rather hear about what else we're passionate about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What posts did you make to explore that? What's stopping you now? I'd like to know too. I thought everyone was free to being such posts already. What's stopping them? Not me. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When was the last time you contributed anything to the photography aspect of photo.net? What's the ratio of your OT forum activity to photography related activity?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now we get to the metrics. Ok, what are the exact requirements? I read all the threads in the sub-sections that interest me, and I post where I have something to add of value. If there are requirements for 'post ratios' of some sort, as you are implying with this question, please say what they are, and if they are applied to everyone. I've reviewed cameras I own, I have done trouble shooting, I have posted in the Philosophy column extensively (does that forum still count?). What then are the requirements that you have now brought up?</p>

<p>In summary, your argument is you just don't like the stuff others are interested in. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for helping to underscore my points, Mr. Stephens. It usually takes a bit more effort to draw out such examples. I appreciate the effort you put into those counterpoints without any apparent sense of irony.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Thanks for helping to underscore my points, Mr. Stephens. It usually takes a bit more effort to draw out such examples. I appreciate the effort you put into those counterpoints without any apparent sense of irony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And why would there be any sense of irony when nothing of an ironic nature was demonstrated by the post? You preferred <em>classic rhetoric (Ahem!),</em> and such was the argument I made above: your complaint is chiefly an unreasoned one, because it is hinged on a not a single thing greater than some petty biases you have against topics "you can learn about on your own," or that you have "had your fill of from real life acquaintances." All of which we can boil down to <em>simple personal preferences</em>.</p>

<p>Given the OT Forum was rolling right along when I joined, and I posted to it with politeness and decorum at all times, (even when the site's moderators didn't follow that rule), I find it quite impossible to discover the logic behind your current attempt at scolding me in this thread about my posts in the OT forum! You do see this point, right? </p>

<p> </p>

I think the 4-5 people who in the past have turned the pnet OT forum into their own personal

playground, usually after causing political/religious/gun/etc threads to run amok (to the

detriment of the larger audience tired of and driven away by the insults and bad behavior), have a great

opportunity for creating their own forum where that group can get together, set their own rules, and do whatever they want.

Win-win for all - them, the larger photonet audience, and admins/moderators trying to create a better

environment for its members.

It is true that no one owes anyone else a free place on the web to discuss politics. That's really the

bottom line here-- that the operators of the site have the freedom to do with the site as they please and to make decisions they feel will best maintain a site that is primarily about photography.

 

I don't care one way or the other. I am happy to see that there may be plans to re-start an Off Topic forum

sans politics, which is a common approach on hobby sites, and may be a good choice here now. It might even strengthen the discussion of what for many of us are more constructive and fulfilling topics.

<p>It's interesting how often some kind of restriction on freedom is appreciated or even demanded. I refuse to exercise my freedom to change the channel (to walk away from the OT forum because it's not my cup of tea) so I rely on the authorities to take away everyone's choice so I don't have to make a responsible decision for myself. This says nothing about administration's decision to close the forum, which I support, but it's telling that is has to come to that. If there were no complaints, it wouldn't have been closed, and if folks had just been able to walk away, things would have panned out very differently. Obviously, likewise, if people had been more reasonable in their behaviors, there wouldn't have been a need either for complaints or for anyone to walk away. Such is life.</p>

<p>I've pondered that "changing channels" analogy quite a bit, in this context. Why did so many people find it disruptive? Why not simply "change the channel"?</p>

<p>My best guess is that some folks - assuming the "channel" analogy works at all - regard photo.net *as* the channel. The entire internet is the TV or radio. They choose this channel - photo.net - for photography. Many photo.netters - perhaps most photo.netters - use the unified forum view and see all activity. And they find it disruptive to see unpleasant stuff, reminders of the outside world they're hoping to escape for a little while through photography.</p>

<p>I suspect that most of our members are well read, well informed, and don't really care to be reminded of the "outside" world during the 15 minutes or hour they choose to spend on photo.net. That's pretty much how I view things, anyway. That's why I dropped most news and commentary media stuff from my Facebook feed. It's just clutter, the same stuff I already read anyway via RSS feeds, and I don't really care to be interrupted with that stuff during the time I set aside to catch up with online friends.</p>

<p>It's just compartmentalization, something humans tend to do in order to cope with a glut of information and stimuli, so that we can make some sense of things and order out of chaos.</p>

<p>So, assuming the channel analogy applies at all, it's more akin to parking the TV or radio on a favorite channel and being upset because the station manager chose to allow some inflammatory ads or interstitial programming which wasn't compatible with the overall programming of the channel/station. Perhaps the station manager and marketing folks thought, hey, it'll draw more viewers/listeners and more buzz, more hype, and that's always a good thing, right?</p>

<p>Not necessarily so.</p>

<p>From that perspective, even one of our local radio stations made some adjustments in response to listener complaints. The station retained the talk/news format, but dumped some of the most toxic and extremist "talk" show propagandists, in favor of some more actual news related commentary and more balanced and diverse talk/interview programming. They also dropped "Coast to Coast", which I thought was a mistake - it's a harmless and entertaining bit of fluff to listen to while I'm dozing off. But the change was consistent with the station's goal to differentiate themselves from the din, and the John Batchelor show that replaced C2C is actually very good.</p>

<p>The closing of the forum suggests that we can derive a measure of PN's social outcome from the performance measured in the OT forum, and therefore establish a direct link to the site's financial return. If this were true, then we should see an immediate upswing in site activity as dissenting voices are squelched by the forum closing, and a corresponding increase in site patronship, right? </p>

<p>Furthermore, if similar flareups occur in other forums with some regularity, say for example, in the Site Help forum, and there were equal numbers of dissenting and threatening voices, should we disable that forum as well? Or do we simply close offending threads because somehow it's different? </p>

<p>I suppose what I'm really saying is, the misdiagnosis of misleading symptoms will lead to the wrong cure. </p>

<p><em>"So, assuming the channel analogy applies at all, it's more akin to parking the TV or radio on a favorite channel and being upset because the station manager chose to allow some inflammatory ads or interstitial programming which wasn't compatible with the overall programming of the channel/station."</em></p>

<p>An excellent point and viable way to see it. I'll meet you half way, since there's merit in your analogy of PN being more like the channel than any specific forum, but it breaks down a little because you still have to be proactive to enter the Off Topic forum and read it whereas when the channel is left on you have no control over what comes blaring out at you.</p>

<p>Again, just to make it clear. I don't disagree with its having been closed. My wonderment is more about the community's actions and complaints than the administration's ultimate decision.</p>

I personally find topics being repeated, in not-so-short- & short time interval, in one forum and/or across multiple forums to be offensive. As a recourse, I would much appreciate if moderators proactively close/delete such threads; if one is feeling generous, point to already existing thread(s) elsewhere.

 

(Lacking above recourse, I would also be happy simply with a working "ignore this thread" link/button so that the offending thread does not show ever again in the respective forum or in "Unified View", including "New Responses".)

 

In short, repeated topics are my "Off Topic" poison. One can avoid them only so much before each display increasingly irritates.

<p>So I come back to the OT forum after a long hiatus (Mom's long illness & passing away) only to find that it's closed down. Aw shucks! While we could certainly find other sites to talk about politics, gubmint, social issues, etc it's been my experience that the smart people are here. I mean, there are a lot of very smart people here with a wide range of knowledge and interesting thought processes on many topics from cooking to global economics. That's what I really liked about this forum more than topic specific forums. It was often interesting to read even when I didn't post and I had no trouble skipping over topics that would bore me. </p>

<p>Yes, it could certainly get abrasive at times. People went over the line at times. But m stephens hit the nail on the head with his comment that we live in an era of righteous indignation at EVERYTHING! You name it, people are righteously offended. It's really gotten old because you can see it reflected in our legislation. An intolerant nation of wusses that can't stand to be offended but also can't take the time to formulate the words to express their own thoughts.<br>

<br>

Well, it's not my site. I don't pay these bills. You have the right to do whatever you want with your site. I will miss it though. And Lex, trust me, nobody wants to get photography advice from me. I'm one of those people who contributed to OT more than the photography forums, but that's because I'm still learning and I won't give bad advice. This site is still the best for photography knowledge, hands down, and I come to learn, not to teach (yet). I did do a lot of rating which is just a visceral reaction to a photograph. I'm pretty good at visceral reactions ;-)<br>

<br>

Bye bye Fred, my OT husband. It's been real. I have a feeling that our interesting home has been permanently razed or if not, it will be replaced with a FEMA trailer with topics so bland and uninteresting I won't want to live there anyway. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"And Lex, trust me, nobody wants to get photography advice from me."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I would. You're just the sort of person I would want to critique my photos, especially to hone a theme or project.</p>

Too bad a few people ruin it for others. It seems that whenever any one person starts to dominate a

forum, they're gone, usually with good reason.

<p>If you can't stand the heat, get yourself out of the kitchen! You don't...</p>

<ol>

<li>Tear down the whole kitchen, </li>

<li>Ask your room mates to cook at the neighbor's house, </li>

<li>And, you shouldn't order your room mates to only cook non spicy food. </li>

</ol>

<p>And room mates surely do hold different perspectives, and biases. While some don't, many do prefer spicy food. No one is forcing anyone to watch us cook...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good to hear from you, Christine, and sorry to hear of your mother. I lost my Dad last year and can imagine how you might be feeling.</p>

<p>About the OT forum, I 'm not sure it's so much about righteous indignation as it is about needlessly dominating a conversation and potentially playing to an audience; it's one thing to disagree but quite another to escalate a fruitless disagreement. It doesn't bother me and I am more than willing to put up with it providing it remains civil, but I can also understand how sideline observers might find it offensive. <br>

<br>

In a more general context, the OT forum has accumulated 4834 threads since Josh created it in Sept. 2008, and the vast majority of those threads have been entertaining, educational, friendly, inspiring, and community-building. On the other hand, the forum was also introduced right around the time of the financial collapse and US elections, and 5 years later, it's probably fair to assume that some members here have been touched by the economic and political fallout. These are not normal times, and we shouldn't expect everyone to be happy-go-lucky shopping for the next $3,000 camera, so the OT forum can also, within reason, serves as a release valve. <br>

<br>

I think an authentic community is one in which its members are accepting of individual differences; a place where we can also cut one another a bit of slack in the recognition that we're not always necessarily at our best. <br>

<br>

Of course there's the other side of corporate governance and its duty to make money, but that's a strategic issue and quite a separate discussion. </p>

 

<p><em>""the OT forum can also, within reason, serve(s) as a release valve""</em><br /> <br /> It was in fact much more than that, Michael.</p>

<p>I think many of us, who have participated throughout the years in a great number of the 4834 threads you mention, did it, not in order to dominate or convince others about our individual political, social and ideological standpoints, but in order, together, to try better understand world wide issues of concern.</p>

<p>The financial crisis, inequalities, poverty, guns, human rights, the surveillance society after 9/11, wars, global warming, gender roles - and why not good cooking, were discussed numerous times because Photonet is filled with a wide range of knowledged photographers, who are engaged in society and who even shoot "engaged photography" - or "conceptual photography", if you wish.<br>

People who care about what happens with our societies in all these fields. Photography is indeed, for many, a "conceptual art". We do, many of as, street and documentary photography as a means of showing what happens in streets and around us, that reflect good and bad sides of societal change: growing poverty, homeless, marginality, decay, health and environment etc on one side, and happiness, family life, and "life goes on" type of photography, city development, transport, historical roots etc etc. We do nature photography, because we care about nature and some of us, maybe even most of us, are worried also about what pollution, over-exploitation and global warming do to our landscapes and biological diversity.</p>

<p>In fact, personally, I have never considered the "off topic" forum of being off-anything, considering photography. I saw it as a place where context issues were discussed between photographers - in a civilized manner, mostly, but almost always in an engaged and enlightening manner. It was a place of a lot of intelligence, knowledge and engagement. Many of us learned from it and became better photographers in the same time, each in our field of interest.</p>

<p>It might be relevant, in light of all the ever repeated formulations of bad experiences with the OT forum of a smaller number of individuals, in this thread and a few others, the last days, <strong>it might just be justified to thank all those who have contributed to the discussions on the 4834 subjects in the Off Topic forum since its start. It has been a pleasure to read most of them - heated debates or not.</strong><br /> <br /> PS: concerning threads, which are dominated by individuals or a very small number of members, I would think, that other forums could be mentioned as well - maybe most of them. The OT forum was, according to my experience, not an exceptional case. Some relevant statistics would be welcomed on the subject, so that our opinions could be supported or contradicted by facts.</p>

<p>Some very good points you've mentioned, Anders. </p>

<p>We often use the term "community" to describe the collective, but I think it's important to point out the distinction between a community and a mere collection of individuals. The difference is intangible and not easily measured, but it's there and has a tangible influence on site dynamics.</p>

<p>Some are content with impersonal interactions without salutation, referring by name, or any form of social etiquette beyond static question/answer. This might fulfill the basic functioning of a site, but it's not by any stretch a community if there is no interaction beyond dispensing information. It's a collection of individuals. </p>

<p>With its warts n' all, the OT forum is arguably one of the few corners within PN where real community interaction takes place. It's imperfect, but just browse through the nearly 5,000 threads and one will quickly feel a sense of community in the tone of its interaction, albeit fragmented by topic and interests, and notwithstanding the exception. </p>

<p>PN is indeed a site about photography, but far from being marred by the OT forum, I believe peripheral interaction should be encouraged to cultivate and facilitate a more cohesive and friendly environment which is essential to every successful "community", whether through an OT forum or site features by design. </p>

 

"Casual Photo Conversations" seems to be turning into OP, sometimes via not so subtle efforts. ;-}

<p>+1 for Leslie's comment. </p>

<p>As some one who ALWAYS checked No Words, Off Topic, Casual Photo Conversations and Sony/Minolta (in that order) I always just skipped topics that didn't interest me or, if I did check them and realized they had turned into a pissing contest, just moved on. </p>

<p>I would say 'we're all adults here' but maybe not.....</p>

<p>"" 'we're all adults here' but maybe not.....""<br>

Hopefully those "maybe-be nots" of yours, Diane, don't look at the nudes on PS. Or maybe you are just mistaken and seeing disagreements of opinions as signs of lack of maturity. I see it differently, as you might have understood.</p>

<p>Losing one forum that appealed to many photonetters, but which was compromised by a relative few who had trouble entering into a debate without slandering another, is quite sad, and also I think for the appeal of the site in general as well as those who miss the specific OT forum.</p>

<p>This is probably more so (sad) at present when the quality of posts and frequency of interaction in forums (or at least the several that I follow when not actually photographing or posting images) is IMHO not as high as it has previously been.</p>

<p>This is a subjective personal evaluation that may be argued, of course, but I have poreviously found a lot of interests in the questions and problems of others and that does not seem to me to be at its highest at present.</p>

<p>At least with the OT forum in existence, if you couldn't find a stimulating OP or varied and informative discussion on a photographic forum, or find one where your participation might be stimulating (as a curious being, not unlike others, I seek new information and bright thoughts from fellow photonetters), you could for the moment see what was happening on the OT forum and contribute there.</p>

<p>I think it is important to recognize that photography cannot be divorced from many non photographic human activities, which are often the subject matter that fuels our photography, whether they relate to OT subjects of family, hobbies, vintage Thunderbirds, food and wine preferences, mountain climbing, culture, politics and entertainment. Those were found on OT forum and not on flik'r or other photography sites.</p>

<p>I believe quite sincerely that, given the presence of sufficient moderator time, an OT forum including ALL these subjects (and more) could be made quite viable for Photo.Net members and would do a lot to keep and attract members who want a more complete experience that is commensurate and parallel with the wide applications of photography.</p>

<p>The few with little education in dealing with contrary opinions and with a propensity to react emotionally and without courtesy could simply be given a "recess" from posting for a few months, in order to cool off and to reformulate, or reform, their reactions that were obviously over the top.</p>

<p>I totally agree with you, Arthur, despite the fact I'm one of those who were partly suspended from the Off Topic forum, probably because I asked a moderator to "calm down", because he wrote he was so annoy with the forum, that he wanted to "stab it in the eye".<br>

<br>

In fact, I think we all can profit from a cooling down period, but I certainly hope that some kind of Off Topic forum will be reintroduce together with an improved role of moderators. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I'm one of those who were partly suspended from the Off Topic forum..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you weren't. The entire OT forum was disabled. It affected every member equally. No one was singled out. You were not personally targeted. </p>

<p>I've explained this before in one of the two or three ongoing threads about the closing of the OT forum, as well as in the first thread you initiated on the site help forum complaining about the closing of the OT forum. </p>

<p>That thread has since been deleted because it was inaccurate - you claimed you were singled out. You were not.</p>

<p>So let's reiterate to make this absolutely clear: When the Off Topic forum was disabled, effective October 14, 2013, no particular member was singled out, temporarily suspended from posting or banned from the OT forum. The entire OT forum was disabled, affecting everyone equally. No new threads were permitted. Any replies to existing threads were kept in a holding bin awaiting approval or deletion. Since then, that option has been changed an no new replies to existing threads are being accepted.</p>

<p>This affects every member equally.</p>