What do we have to do to get the Off Topic Forum back

<p>Jack@$$, @€€ or @££ or whatever, are paying and non-paying contributors, I'm sure. Trolls don't come in one color. Excluding them from the OT forum, has been done regularly and is nothing new, when they are considered, rightly or wrongly, by the moderators to go over the top. Nothing new. So if excluding trolls is the answer, then we can have the OT forum back tomorrow after this undeserved cooling-off period. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00cBBy"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2071139">Anders Hingel</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 23, 2013; 02:30 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>""I'm not exactly sure where I or anyone else could find you at the moment.""<br />Right there, Alan, as mostly. If not, ask NSA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I checked with the NSA and they are still trying to locate you. It's just that they've been busy with Angela Merkle.</p>

 

<p>Almost like the good old days in the OT forum, Alan. Missing the good spirited exchanges.<br /></p>

<p>One of the great advantages of Photo.Net over other photo sites was the presence of long term thinking members who were photographers as well as social creatures who enjoyed that one stop site for a multitude of photographic topics as well as the forum and topics that related to the other sides of their lives. The OT forum created a sense of community (sharing of ideas, exchanging information, raising political questions as well as social ones) and an international one that went beyond photo gear, photo themes and photo uploads and critique. With the exception of philosophy of photography and perhaps one or two other forums, the OT forum made Photo.net unique. Finding something that really distinguishes Photo.Net in the future may now be harder than it was. There are so many journals and sites on photography that to be different is not that easy.</p>

<p>That a few unbridled and simple minds who could not control themselves on the OT forum and were able to destroy that forum value of Photo.Net, in spite of mostly good monitoring by the administration, is a shame. Hopefully the forum will be reinstated with good rules and allowed to connect members as it did in the past (if they are still around and not hanging out instead on a similar competitive photographic site). </p>

<p>Checking out dpreview's <em>Open Talk forum</em>, they have a <strong>Complain button</strong> that is on every post. Not just at their <em>Open Talk forum</em>, but every forum and every post. I may of overlooked it, but don't see anything like that here at Pnet. Seems like that would be an easy solution for any post or thread that is offensive. After the complain button is hit, a mod checks it out to see if the Terms of Use have been violated or not. <br />I apologize if I broke a rule by mentioning another site that discusses photography.</p>

<p>Well said, Arthur. <br>

I'm encouraged reading this thread. I hope if there are more members with an opinion reading this they will be inspired to chime in. If nothing else, at least now I know I'm not alone in missing those enlightened discussions. <br>

And Michael, your input and insight is thoughtful as always, I hope there is at least a lunch somewhere in our future.<br>

Now I must devote 100% of my attention to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Have a great weekend all.</p>

 

A "complain button". A very good idea, hoping that our administrators are up to the task.

 

For anyone of us who has been responsible for companies or services, complains coming in are always a precious tool

for knowing when things can be improved and faults corrected.

 

One should however always be aware of trolling

complainers, who systematically complain about anyone and anything, day in and day out.

<p>At one time I had thought it would be useful to have a "thumbs-up" button (helpful/useful/enjoyable/worth reading) vs. a "thumbs-down" (pissy/snarky/offensive/whatever) that people could hit at their option. If a member's thumbs-down:thumbs-up ratio reached some threshold value, the mods might consider booting the offender off the island. I think this would require less time of the mods. Each member's up/down ratio status could be indicated with an icon beside their name (just like posting rate), so there would be no surprises.</p>

<p>Perhaps excessive complaints or "thumbs-down" clicks could be curbed by timing this feature out for anyone who uses it excessively. Dunno.</p>

<p>I am reluctant to say anything about the "paid members only" concept, because I'm not a paid member. At one time some generous, anonymous person donated a paid membership for me. However, I can't really afford a membership on my own, and I hate to ask it of my partner. I try to make my contributions through helpful advice I give on the forum. I realize that most PNetters simply lurk in silence. Anyway, if the OT forum is paid-only, I regret I won't be able to participate.</p>

<p>It was also suggested somewhere in this thread that OT comments could be introduced behind photographic pretexts elsewhere on the forum. That might be true of some topics, but certainly not all. For instance, I was thinking about the following this morning:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>(Subjective/objective/possessive)</li>

<li>I/me/my</li>

<li>he/him/his</li>

<li>we/us/our</li>

<li>they/them/their</li>

<li>it/it/its</li>

<li>she/<strong>her/her</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>I find it very interesting that the objective and possessive female pronouns are identical. I'm curious whether this relates to the olden norm that only men had property, not women. Presumably a feminine possessive pronoun would therefore not be important enough to deserve its own word and would only refer to personal items, not most property -- her hand, her hair, her dress.</p>

<p>(I find it equally interesting that the subjective and objective form of the gender-neutral "it" are the same.)</p>

<p>I wouldn't have a clue how to introduce a photograph relating to this question, and it is actually a difficult thing to research elsewhere (with so many discussions of genderless pronouns that pack the search results). However, I know there are members here who might have some idea as to why this might be. JDM von Weinberg comes to mind, and I'm sure there are others. This is the sort of thing I would enjoy asking today on the OT forum.</p>

<p>I'm sure there is a language forum somewhere that discusses these sorts of issues, but I'm not going to join a language forum just to satisfy my curiosity on this one question.</p>

<p>One problem with a dislike button is that people tend to show dislike when they disagree what is being said, even when it turns out to be a fact. It's much better to focus on constructive things and encourage others than destroy someone for saying what is true, even if what is true is unpopular.</p>

<p>I've participated in Off Topic stuff here. I've done a lot more talking and learning about photos here. Much prefer the latter, though I'm happy to ignore the former if it's brought back. Don't like rating photos, so am quite sure I would not want "like" or "dislike" buttons for people or their comments. </p>

<p>Though some functions work well on other social networking sites or other types of sites, they may not be suitable for this site. I like the differences between PN and other sites and would prefer to see PN establish its own identity and presence rather than mirror or mimic established trends happening in other places.</p>

<p>Sarah, I do not have English as first language, but is it not right that the possessive determiner and object is "her" as you mention, whereas the possessive pronoun is "hers". </p>

<p>Although nowhere near as dedicated or thoughtful about photography as Fred is, I'll echo his perspective on "learning about photos" here. I do believe that without the political overtones this site is a more enjoyable place - and not just in the OT Forum. Stuff just seems to spill over, unfortunately. </p>

<p>I once had a colleague describe a client as "not worth the grief to revenue ratio". I suspect that may describe the view of P.Net's management and voluntary moderators when it comes to the OT Forum over the past couple of years. </p>

<p>David, we are mostly in agreement. But I do have misgivings about something. A lot of important photography throughout history, and in our own portfolios, has been and is of a political nature, certainly of controversial personal and social natures as well. My own photos of gay people are, in at least some sense, obviously political, even if also personal and cultural. We've all seen photos of war, a lot of street photos, photos of protests, of arrests, etc. We would risk discussing photos in only the most abstract and superficial of terms if we couldn't get passionate about some of the more controversial or even non-controversial political and social underpinnings they have. And, yet, we all know what happens when the politics take over and the photographic concern becomes less and less evident. Trying to monitor and control how deeply political a discussion about a photograph can get, especially one that is political in nature, is a very tough nut to crack. I guess my best discussions about these things are with people in person, where no monitoring is taking place and no guidelines have to be given in terms of how a discussion may proceed. I simply have to accept that in a more public place with a much more diversified membership as PN, certain kinds of discussions will be inherently problematic and will never be able to match what I can have in person within a face-to-face community that is willing to engage in more heated, more passionate, and more controversial and even disturbing engagements. Coming to PN has enough benefits that there are some restrictions, which I don't necessarily like but more and more have come to understand, I'm willing to live with.</p>

<p>I am happy to have reduced the number of film cassettes about my name from three to zero and now to one. I love discussing the human situation and in a very small way am active in trying to do something about it. I could undertake that sort of discussion on the OT forum, which may have been responsible together with the PofP and a few other forums for my past greater involvement in Photo.Net.</p>

<p>Another aspect that is important in this discussion is to reflect on how much time we clock up in reading Photo.Net forums and in uploading/managing our photos or discussing those of others, and how that compares in time to direct interaction with other persons in our daily activities. For me Photo.Net seems to average out at about an hour per day. In other words, I connect with others in this manner and often that time exceeds my other direct interactions each day with others (excluding my partner, who would also like to see my time on Internet reduced in favor of active local preoccupations), at least at a considered communicative level.</p>

<p>That is one reason why I enjoyed the OT forum, as it enabled complimentary communication about other topics than photography as such, and (I think this is important) often of topics that can also influence our photographic approach and values and sometimes even enrichen that.</p>

<p>If my photographs have a human or symbolic message, it is seldom about photography. I have sometimes thought about certain photographic objectives and subjects as a result of OT discussions subjects. The considerable time spent on Photo.Net was rewarded by having a more complete human and photographic experience.</p>

<p>Having said that, I do recognize that it is not an obligation for Photo.Net to host an OT forum. If it is anything, it is either an opportunity, or a burden.</p>

<p>I wonder how many have noticed that the frequency of posting on many technical photographic forums has diminished in recent times? I go back regularly to see what else has been posted on several OP threads on a variety of Photo.Net forums and come up often with little or nothing.</p>

<p>There are some forums and OPs that do generate a lot of interest, but often it is due to the ATS (always the same) posters. If the dynamics of the forums is important for the administrators of Photo.Net, perhaps they might try something in order to increase the number of members who participate in those discussions. That has nothing to do with arguments for bringing back the OT forum, but perhaps important for sustaining future member interaction, and no doubt also for the question of increased visibility to Photo.Net advertisers (someone has to pay for our pleasure).</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>""Coming to PN has enough benefits that there are some restrictions, which I don't necessarily like but more and more have come to understand, I'm willing to live with""</em><br>

Fred, you are over-dramatizing the situation. So, if the answer to the OT is that we have to die for it, to get the Off Topic forum back, you will not find any candidates.</p>

<p>More seriously, we are surely here because of our passion for photography, but some of us also believe, that PN and its members are best served if a community of photographers can express itself in many broad fields of common interest too. If PN members are passionate about food, why not open the doors for discussing it together. If PN members are terrified by world affairs, why tell them to go somewhere else. The Off Topic forum was such place, where members could meet around a virtual beer or two and exchange knowledge, experiences and viewpoints in areas of common interests. Without it, PN is a poorer place to hang around, but for most, I would expect, and for me too, PN will remain the homebase.</p>

<p>Is this the President of America thread? You know..... the bloke who has upset some folks who like a cup of tea because he has chosen his own Photographer. Bad man.</p>

<p>Us in the cuppa tea party are still trying to work out... where's about in S. America is this Iraq place..... we think it might be near Bolivia...you know Bolivia at the arse end of us. Hey, somebody got to help our cuppa tea voters in this confusing Geography stuff. Real folk are in training to have babies, shoot moose, and where to hide their piece for easy access.</p>

<p>Hey, on a clear day in Alaska you can see Putin in his palace chopping folks heads off.</p>

<p>Cool or what! come to Alaska for the good life.</p>

<p>This is a test. If we can all stay cool after that we deserve to get our OT forum back.</p>

<p>Sanford, I am ignoring the comment. Cool as a cucumber :-)</p>

<p>Anders, LOL. Perhaps a language issue. Saying I can live with something is idiomatic English, not really a matter of life or death, just a way to simply say I can accept something. Not meant dramatically at all. :-)</p>

<p>Can an OT forum be a source of enrichment? Or is it as suggested earlier in the thread, pretty much a cesspool? </p>

<p>A forum is what it is. It's the people who congregate a forum that makes it come alive. </p>

<p>A community that is unable to enrich itself through diversity and acceptance is probably one that will remain small, but homogenized, sanitized, and sterilized. It will also not likely to have a soul. </p>

<p>I already see in this discussion a perfect, if unintentionally ironic, demonstration of why the OT forum became unmanageable: Imputing excessive emotion to another person's quite rational and well considered comments. It comes across as condescending at best, tone deaf to the actual message, and, at worst, needlessly personally provocative. </p>

<p>It's an example of why "ad hominem" does not always accompany "attack" and why logical fallacies are often subtle, nibbling away at the foundation of civil discourse like little word termites.</p>

<p>For the same reason it became necessary to close another Casual Photo Conversations discussion last night because a potentially interesting and challenging issue rapidly declined into insults and impugning the motivations of another member, rather than debating the actual issue.</p>

<p>If we are incapable of consistently observing certain standards for discourse here, on the Casual Photo Conversations forum, for issues generally relevant to photography, what hope is there for a revitalized Off Topic forum?</p>

<p>I'll admit, I believe our standards should be higher than those for typical comments on YouTube, Slate, HuffPo, RT News or Facebook. We should expect better of each other here.</p>

<p>And, believe me, I know it's not easy. I have to rein in my wild snark pony every day, not always successfully, just to avoid banning myself from photo.net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G - A lot of important photography throughout history, and in our own portfolios, has been and is of a political nature, certainly of controversial personal and social natures as well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's interesting you put that out there, Fred, because I had exactly the same thought as I wrote my original post, to which you were responding. I thought of the impact of photos published during my "youth" such as the photo of the napalmed Vietnamese girl, and the execution of the alleged Vietnamese spy as examples - not to mention any number of photos of civil rights activities then, and since then. The tough part is how do we have conversations about these things without some of the polemics caused by our reaction, as Lex describes above? I don't have the answer - I know my only way of dealing with it on the Off-Topic forum became ignoring most threads that could go that way, and I just felt better about myself the next morning. No easy answers from me, although I will agree your point that doing this in person is somehow better than what happens in forums and threads such as these. The nuance of the written word is not always as evident as we'd like when we put it on a digital screen.</p>

>>> A lot of important photography throughout history, and in our own portfolios, has been and is of a political nature, certainly of controversial personal and social natures as well

 

>>> I thought of the impact of photos published during my "youth" such as the photo of the napalmed

Vietnamese girl, and the execution of the alleged Vietnamese spy as examples - not to mention any number of

photos of civil rights activities then, and since then. The tough part is how do we have conversations about these

things without some of the polemics caused by our reaction, as Lex describes above?

 

If it's about photography, yours or someone else's, then that's not really "Off Topic." Though of course people should still be respectful of others' views no matter what forum the discussion is in.

 

I'm glad Lex posted just above. He captured my thoughts on the subject and expressed them much better than I

could. I'm also in agreement with Fred's 12:37pm post. Since I suspect the new photonet will be coming online

soon, best to leave the toxic past behind and move forward. There are plenty of other site available for the other

stuff.

<p>I would like to see the OT forum back. But I also feel that there is/was a degree of hypocrisy on the moderating side. Some people would say things others found offensive, but it was the offended members who were told off, rather than the person who caused the offense.<br>

I think it was an instructive window. I was often struck by the ironies of the thread topics, e.g. no mention whats-o-ever of the death of Vo Nguyen Giap in the same week [a photojournalist?] was declared "a Hero". <br>

I think it is important that any truly international forum accepts the immense diversity of opinion held by the very large number of members who belong to it and accepts that most contributors are in fact, voicing their beliefs or reacting to the promulgation of "received wisdom" which they feel must be countered. This is bound to produce conflict at times. We're only typing. I'm not going to come round to your house with a baseball bat if I think you're an idiot. </p>

<p>Fred, I know, as you would maybe expect, but "dying for it" is equally idiomatic, as you know too. You could just die for a piece of pie.</p>