Re: Disabled Off Topic Forum

<p>Yes, please add my name to the list of those in favor of Sarah's "OTSP" list. I've mentioned that a couple of times in these threads, and still believe that those discussions that don't do politics are entertaining at least, and often educational at best.</p>

<p>I think Sarah's suggestion merits a try.</p>

<p>The loss of OT, including its political content, is sad. While I have found the non political content of OT very valuable, I also enjoyed reading and participating in the political discussions.</p>

<p>I look at the benefits of an OT forum (OT or OTSP) this way. Photography on a fairly advanced level attracts others who have outlooks in life that share many features, whether they are from South Africa, Kansas or Madrid. The interaction of different cultures is a perk of Photo.Net and the way other societies view things can always enrich my own life and community. If someone raises the point that they are attracted by Canadian nature but are repugned by the state of the relationship of our government to our indigenous population, that would not be an insult to me. Sometimes we need others to put a mirror in front of our own collectivity for us to think a bit more deeply about our own priorities and values.</p>

<p>While this may have only minor implications for our photography, we should remember that photography is an exploration of the world outside (and for some an inner world) and we cannot be good photographers without having societal values. The argument (debate) of various political issues not only satisfies the need of members to communicate social and personal values as well as technique, but strengthens our perception of the needs of others. </p>

<p>Another question is expanding our knowledge of other jurisdictions than our own. OT provided a site to inform or question others about the human condition within their own jurisdiction, about various events of potential interest to those foreign to that site. of political questions that determine freedom of photographers visiting that jurisdiction, and other less photography focussed subjects.</p>

<p>Improper behaviour has to be controlled, whether on a possible future OT site, or on any other forum. Those who behave improperly have been previously rejected from Photo.Net. I have seen that happen often in other forums than OT. I am not convinced that banning one very popular forum is going to change things that much. Photo.Net was quite unique in providing the more universal appeal of a site that contained different forums for expression and discussion between members. I learned a lot about, and from, fellow members in several absorbing discussions on the OT site, as I do in the Philosophy of Photography site, Casual photo conversations, as well as the more specific photo forums of Photo.Net. I will miss that unique opportunity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, a new user shows up and sees the Off Topic Forum and, well, there they go, off in search of a more pleasant place. Or an advertiser looks to see what they're paying for and find out it's something where one can be offended if one doesn't make the right "personal choice."<br /> -----------------</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Of course, users and advertisers would never show up and be offended by thousands of <em>pornographic photos</em>, right? No, not at all. But seeing a political discussion? - run and hide! Cover the eyes of the children! Call the bomb squad!</p>

<p>Let's put a level of honesty to all this way over the top ranting about the OT Forum, ok? This site is a 'money machine' (the original owner made over $5M when he sold it). The object is singular, and simple: <em>get as many people as possible to click on as many ads as possible as often as possible - Ka-Ching!</em> So, of the three categories - porn, politics and religion, porn works fine for advertisers (attracts males like flies), but religion and politics are deadly ingredients.</p>

<p>Politics is deadly because in any political forum, there will ultimately be an <em>anti-capitalism</em> sentiment expressed. Religion is equally deadly because <em>anti-materialism</em> will ultimately be expressed. OUCH! What would make an advertiser run away faster than seeing <em>anti-capitalist or anti-materialist propaganda</em> on a web site they pay to place their advertising? Well, certainly not porn!</p>

<p>There's nothing of course wrong with the owners wanting to get more Ka-Ching. What is insincere, and utterly disingenuous however, is this act of scapegoating some people who enjoyed arguing on an OT section of the forum provided by the owners! Whatever happened to good old honesty? e.g. "Hey, you guys are scaring off advertisers, costing us money, and we're going to fix that." The push-back you are now getting from a couple people here is because of this dearth of transparency. People don't like getting scapegoated. I know I don't. The motivation for closing OT has been obvious, and people are smart enough to know it isn't because they "offended" someone, considering this very same site is chock-a-block with offensive nude photos that would scare a sailor!</p>

<p> </p>

"Hey, you guys are scaring off advertisers, costing us money, and we're going to fix that."

 

No, more like: You guys are causing a lot of complaints from users, driving people away by contributing to a negative, combative atmosphere, and contributing little to nothing to the photographic goals of the site, so we're going to fix that. That is a 100% honest explanation of what's going on. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single complaint from advertisers. The Off-Topic forum wasn't shut down because it was a threat to revenue. It was shut down because it created lots of problems and provided few benefits.

 

As I said above, photo.net is planning to reintroduce a forum for people to ask questions and have discussions about topics outside of photography, but without the constant arguing from people who are here primarily to use that forum as a soapbox. That should bring back the main benefits of such a forum.

<blockquote>

<p>No, more like: You guys are causing a lot of complaints from users, driving people away by contributing to a negative, combative atmosphere, and contributing little to nothing to the photographic goals of the site, so we're going to fix that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not privy to the complaints, and so I take your word for it. That said, I am proud as punch over every word I have posted in OT. I have taken a lot of time to post about the economy, national debt issues, operations of the FED, dangers of deflation, losses of civil rights. the monetary system, and other topics that will actually affect the lives of all people, not just photographers. I'd have no problem sharing any of my "contributions" here on this site with my mother, sister, little nieces and nephews, or school children of any age. I wonder if the thousands of photographers(?) here posting their rolls of filthy photographs, under the guise of (cough) "fine art photography," can say the same?</p>

<p>You may not like what I post. You may be frightened by some complaints by people who don't like politics. But, I will tell you this my friend, at least I don't have to wash my hands after every posting.</p>

<p>I showed a friend the OT forum. We read through some sample discussion in several of the threads. Then I showed him the so-called, "fine art" section until he screamed from nausea and cried "uncle". Then I showed him all the recent moderator complaints about the horrible nature of the OT Forum. After 10 minutes of him laughing and rolling around I had to scrape him off the floor. We spent the next 10 minutes talking about the word "hypocrisy."</p>

<p>I didn't bother to check how many of the men and women regularly posting in OT are also posting filthy photos. I sincerely hope against hope that it is "none" - I'd like to think the men and women I have been arguing economics, and politics with really are the best and the brightest here, and not part of the massive male infantile obsession with anuses and labia that passes under the flag of "photographic contributions." Yes, we argue, and maybe even toss an insult here and there - all in the spirit of battle. However, not one person there (OT) has ever been debased and objectified and exploited to the extent of a typical "doll" shots being drooled over by, I suppose, the dudes complaining that some of the bandwidth is being wasted for politics!</p>

<p>So, by all means, continue to scold me for arguing FED policy, and money supply issues with smart people who passionate about civics. I told one of the other moderators a few weeks back that this was the greatest theater one could see for free, and man, it just keeps getting better by the day.</p>

Lex thanked you in the other thread, and I should thank you in this one, for such a clear demonstration of why the Off Topic forum needs a "reincarnation cycle." You're actually proud of your self-important, disingenuous, tedious, insulting, and generally unpleasant style of "discussion."

<p><a href="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/472/345/1c3.jpg">Ma gavte la nata</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lex thanked you in the other thread, and I should thank you in this one, for such a clear demonstration of why the Off Topic forum needs a "reincarnation cycle." You're actually proud of your self-important, disingenuous, tedious, insulting, and generally unpleasant style of "discussion."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course I am proud of it. My posting contains no insults and there is nothing disingenuous about it. As to self-important, I thank the gods I've learned my life is too important to waste it convincing women to spread their legs so I can make rolls of prurient photographs to post on web sites. Tedious? Indeed it is tedious to carefully construct a bullet-proof argument. Anyone who has studied say <em>classical rhetoric</em>, knows how tedious it can be. You can't make a convincing rebuttal with jibberish and juvenile GIFs when faced with such an argument, can you?</p>

<p>That leaves us with unpleasant style then, right? Yes, I can well imagine why you find my style unpleasant. I think it would be very unpleasant to be trying to figure out a rebuttal to my argument that, "a tall pile of prurient genitalia photographs may not make the best podium for finger wagging about the offensive nature of a discussion on quantitative easing." If I was on the wrong end of that argument, I'd think it was pretty unpleasant too! Thanks for noticing.</p>

<p>I seem to have ripped the scab off the unmentionable here. And having done so, I am all the more amused now by the relentless 'high-toned' hectoring and expressions of exasperation that the OT Forum gang received from the 'holier than thou' over these past days. As if any <em>words</em> ever written in those threads, by such sincere people, could possibly - under any interpretation - be declared "<em>offensive</em>" while in the very midst of a bottomless pit of exploitive vulgarities and graphical human insults, which ought to make any mature minded human being squirm in discomfort, if not pain and embarrassment.</p>

<p>I suggest this 'thought experiment' to prove my position. Take any post you like from the OT Forum - the one you think is the most offensive. And I'll grab a photo of my choosing from the so-called "fine art" section. Imagine (this is just a thought experiment) that we post them side-by-side on the home page. Which will get the most complaints for being <em>offensive</em>? Go ahead, take a guess. Better yet, show the comparison to your spouses, families, friends, neighbors and co-workers, and see which they find offensive. </p>

<p>Yes, companies can do whatever they like with their properties! I have <strong>no argument</strong> that they may choose to eliminate portions of their web site. That's not an issue with me. My only argument here is that the hectoring and denigration of the OT posters (including me) - for posting in a place provided by management - was absolutely unjust and inappropriate in light of the many piles of reeking rubbish posted daily by way of prurient photographs. And that to accuse the OT posters of being <em>offensive</em> in light of their being in the midst of a repository of graphical human insult, is itself an insult to all human intelligence. Relative to the other content on this web site, discussions of politics or religion can hardly be called out for special admonition and public mockery. Those posters are owed an apology. </p>

<p><strong>Moderators:</strong> There's a book recommendation request at the top of the Philosophy Forum thread list. Generally, those type of threads are moved to Casual Conversations. Just wanted to give you a heads up. </p>

Okay, you've convinced me. I'll tell the administration that I recommend 1. opening up new forums focusing on politics, religion, and guns and 2. disabling the ability to upload photos to the site. That should put <b>photo</b>.net back on the proper path.