Alternative place to respond to question on critique

<p>I've lost track of who's banned from which forums. If any of you are unable to respond directly to my Casual Conversations question on what you'd like from a critique, please feel free to respond to this thread instead--I'd really like your input!</p>

<p>There should be a special forum for those banned from forums.</p>

<p>Gordon, since your statement is a tautology (of sorts), I'd like to note my agreement, but qualified by a suggestion that Admin and the forum moderators take a close, hard look at the reasons for banning certain participants. In my opinion, they need to do this from the point of view of whether continuing to maintain the current hard line posture will contribute to PN's losing more subscribers.</p>

<p>It was pleading for not deleting entire posts that led to my being banned until next Monday on Casual (causal?) Conversations. My reference to a particular prior case was apparently the stump over which I tripped.<br>

Will mentioning this now get me banned from Site Help?<br>

I understand (I suppose it's still true) that the moderators are mostly volunteers and should therefore be in a sort of sheltered workshop.<br>

But I still think there should be some sort of appeal to "higher authority" possible.</p>

 

<p>JDM, <br>

In hockey it is called the Penalty Box. Sounds like you have been doing a little high-sticking :-)</p>

Leslie, discounting spammers, the number of photo.net users who have ever been suspended is a tiny fraction of 1%, and even limiting it to fairly-active forum participants, the fraction is about 1%. Only a handful of people have been suspended multiple times and/or from multiple forums.

 

The most-common thing that moderators do is remove spam. The second-most-common thing is moving threads to a more-appropriate forum (where they are more likely to get an answer). Deleting posts/threads and suspending people is relatively rare--something each moderator might do a couple of times a year.

 

"It was pleading for not deleting entire posts that led to my being banned until next Monday on Casual (causal?) Conversations."

 

You've conveniently failed to mention your post attacking another user and calling him names. (To be fair, though, almost everyone who complains about how terrible the moderators are shares this same trait; they always see themselves as innocent victims of an unfair system [a system which, as I noted before, is no problem for the overwhelming majority of users].)

 

Fortunately, the tone and content of threads on the Site Help forum are not representative of the site in general. Simply look at the hundred or so threads outside this forum which have been active in the past few days, and you'll find hundreds of users sharing photos, exchanging information, and interacting in a positive manner.

 

So, you don't really need an alternative place for people to respond to your question about critiques. Almost everyone can respond to your initial thread; the number that can't can be counted on one hand (with fingers left over).

<p>Well said, Mike!</p>

Mike, I don't think Leslie was questioning the NUMBER or PERCENTAGE of people banned. He knew that two members

who've expressed interest in discussing critique have, in fact, been banned from one forum or another but didn't know

which forums they were. So he's gone out of his way to try to accommodate those two long-term and interested members so they might

participate in discussing improvements to critiquing here at PN. As is typical of PN, rather than someone in a position of authority recognizing Leslie's initiative or his reaching out to fellow members, he's provided with a defensive answer to a question he did not pose.

<p>Thanks, Fred, for helping to clarify the intent, and no worries on my part. I also realize that I didn't specify in the initial message that I'm also looking for info on the 2002 critique circles here, which was one of my original intents for this thread. So, JDM, do you have any insights about what did and didn't work in critique circles or other critique experiments of the past?</p>

Point of order. When one is suspended, does the targeted person get an explanation. Hope so. Yes, Leslie, I supported and support your idea of critique circles. I do not recall them. Any idea should be reborn in current form with moderation , light moderation, and given a try. For my part, I am not greatly interested. Long ago I suggested that critiques should not be so open to general community and that it is best to those who have the interest and ability to comment with intelligence. One of the moderators, if I recall, felt this idea was elitist. Which it kind of is and so let it be thus. What I am getting at is simple. Do what it takes to help photo net from what I see as further decline as a presence on the web. (Site Help)

<p>I'm very curious to know just who I attacked and called names? If it seemed so, I can assure you that was not my intent.<br /> Moreover, the message from the moderator explaining the suspension specifically mentioned discussion of moderation.<br /> I am also curious if you were the moderator in question?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>almost everyone who complains about how terrible the moderators are shares this same trait; they always see themselves as innocent victims of an unfair system</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There may be other reasons why this complaint is universal. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Simply look at the hundred or so threads outside this forum which have been active in the past few days, and you'll find hundreds of users sharing photos, exchanging information, and interacting in a positive manner."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Mike, didn't know, so I went to look and indeed something happens elsewhere and there are "active" threats in many forums - but "hundreds ? Really ?. <br>

</p>

<p>Does Photo.net have an "Unsubscribe" button?</p>

<p>Mike Diixon, J.D.M. von Weinberg did not insult or attack anyone. I was banned for one day on the same thread, and then, lo, it was extended to December.</p>

<p>I have had enough of the double-talk about banning.</p>

<p>Frankly, I have had enough, period.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><strong>PHOTO.NET: The Underside</strong></p>

<p>The nature of the culture of authoritarianism is such that it will not tolerate those who simply "talk back" or offer even the most rational response by way of a challenge.</p>

<p>By some path or another, some moderators here (and I am not talking about Walt and his very quiescent "No Words" forum) have gotten it into their minds that they are beyond being challenged <em>to any extent--or by any means.</em></p>

<p>Photo.net can perpetuate that culture if it wishes, but, if it does, it will lose more and more people. I have written Glenn about this tonight, and what I have had to say relates to<strong> the propensity of some moderators to insult at will, and viciously at that</strong>--much more viciously in some cases than those whom they accuse of insulting others (who subsequently get banned).</p>

<p>I thrive on intellectual conflict. That is why I am in the field that I am in--a field that I have been in since the summer of 1968 when I took my first political science and philosophy courses as an undergraduate. I changed majors (from chemistry and math) in my senior year as a result of my love of the exchange of ideas. Others cannot handle intellectual conflict--or dissent of any kind. Some of those people have come to define the culture of Photo.net where the exchange of ideas is concerned. Some of you might not be aware of their existence. Some of us know them too well.</p>

<p>If those persons are not replaced by more enlightened persons, then this site will always have limited appeal to a substantial portion of its contributors--a sanitized site where never is heard a discouraging word.</p>

<p>I invite Photo.net to grow. The alternative is to die. That is hardly a threat. No one will miss one more dissenter who leaves. It is simply a fact of life: you grow or you die.</p>

<p>This site will grow up or it will not.</p>

<p>I will not with these few words be able to change any of that. Someone somewhere has to see it. If I am booted out for saying these things, then this clearly was not the place for me. I am used to grown-ups talking to grown-ups in a grown-up manner. I am not used to being talked down to, as I have been for at least several months now. Nor do I intend to get used to it.</p>

<p>If I disappear at the hands of the same people who cannot tolerate dissent, then I will not miss those persons--or the site which they have come increasingly to define.</p>

<p>I do have my theories, though, as to how things went bad, and I would welcome the chance to discuss them with the folks at Name.Media. The rest of us? Well, many of know each others' e-mail addresses, or know how to message each other on Facebook. Again, that is not a threat--just a <em>fact.</em></p>

<p>I like this site, but I do not actually <em>need</em> it. In any case, if I leave by anyone else's actions, rest assured that the conversation will not stop. It will pick up elsewhere--from San Francisco to New York--and on up to Boston.</p>

<p>I hate authoritarianism, especially when it presents itself as the guardian of civility. That kind of hypocrisy is just a bit more than I am prepared to take.</p>

<p>If that means goodbye, well, I will see most of you somewhere else--sooner or later. Bank on it.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>--Lannie<br /> J. Landrum Kelly, Jr.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>TO:</strong> Mike Dixon</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Re:</strong> Your allegation that JDM von Weinberg was abusive</p>

<p>Mike, you have said above to JDM, "You've conveniently failed to mention your post attacking another user and calling him names. (To be fair, though, almost everyone who complains about how terrible the moderators are shares this same trait; they always see themselves as innocent victims of an unfair system [a system which, as I noted before, is no problem for the overwhelming majority of users].)"</p>

<p>What in fact was said was exactly the reverse: JDM was the one being attacked, as my copy of the entire thread (partially reproduced here) clearly shows:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3025" href="/photodb/user?user_id=7630292" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">norman naffington</a>, Aug 18, 2016; 05:57 a.m.</p>

 

<em id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3028">doris day nudes</em>

bang on. this rubbish, along with other stereo-typical nonsense, belongs in the past

 

 

<a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3032" name="00e6EY" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"></a><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3033" href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">JDM von Weinberg</a> <a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3034" href="/member-status-icons" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank"><img id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3035" title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 18, 2016; 08:56 a.m.

 

Wow, tough crowd.<br id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3038" clear="none" /> As I've told elsewhere, I actually saw Doris Day in person getting out of a limousine in front of the Hilton in Chicago. <br id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3039" clear="none" /> When she stepped out onto the pavement, the entire world went diffuse.

She looked PERFECT.<br id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3041" clear="none" /> By the way, persons who live in glass houses, and all, y'know.

 

 

 

<a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3044" name="00e6Ew" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"></a><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3045" href="/photodb/user?user_id=253916" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Patrick S</a> <a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3046" href="/member-status-icons" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank"><img id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3047" title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 18, 2016; 09:58 a.m.

 

Nudes are a popular theme on photo.net and we're blessed with several photographers who either dabble in or specialize in that field. Sometimes the photographer and model "seem" to be working in cohesion, but we'll never know for sure. If either one is more professional, more relaxed, has a clear concept of what they want, they can elicit the appropriate response from the other. An experienced model can make even the purest noobs look good, while a talented pro photographer can often bring out the best in an awkward or shy model.

As Doctor Scarabus said "We of the occult dedication know all too well the deceptive nature of what "appears" to be" - replace occult with photographer and it holds true.

 

 

 

<a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3054" name="00e6F0" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"></a><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3055" href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Landrum Kelly</a> <a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3056" href="/member-status-icons" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank"><img id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3057" title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3058" title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 18, 2016; 10:02 a.m.

 

<blockquote id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3060">

this rubbish, along with other stereo-typical nonsense, belongs in the past

</blockquote>

You can put it there, Norm, but don't expect it to stay there.

--Lannie

 

 

 

<a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3066" name="00e6FE" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"></a><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3067" href="/photodb/user?user_id=7630292" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">norman naffington</a> , Aug 18, 2016; 10:36 a.m.

 

<em id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3070">By the way, persons who live in glass houses, and all, y'know</em>

No one lives in glass houses anymore, you effing redneck

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3074" name="00e6GA" rel="nofollow" shape="rect"></a><a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3075" href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">JDM von Weinberg</a> <a id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3076" href="/member-status-icons" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank"><img id="yiv0232648932yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1471557654819_3077" title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 18, 2016; 01:15 p.m.

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

Not only "tough" but ignorant and abusive.

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>The attacker who called JDM an "effing redneck" was never banned. JDM and I were. I personally do not think that JDM was attacking in pointing out that the attack on him reflected ignorance and abusiveness. That was a simple statement of fact. In fact, it was too kind: the attacker was downright malicious.<br>

Just for the record, <em><strong>I keep good records. </strong> </em>One never knows when one might need them. Therefore, any thread that I post to (or have posted to since 2009) gets copied and archived in e-mails to myself on three different e-mail accounts.</p>

<p>One can't be too careful where the truth is concerned. </p>

<p>JDM did ask if you were the one who banned him. Someone has banned me repeatedly since mid-summer. Was that you, Mike?</p>

<p>If so, I respectfully ask that you resign as a moderator. If so, you have abused your position, to the detriment of the site and the sense of community of which we speak so highly.</p>

<p>If not you, then who? Does anybody (besides myself) care?</p>

<p>This is not a good situation. It is in fact deplorable, regardless of who the rogue moderator is.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just testing to see if I have been banned here, too--for introducing hard evidence in a rational manner.</p>

<p>I do think that there needs to be some kind of forum--perhaps one that is not easily accessible to casual viewers--where these issues can be voiced.</p>

<p>That would be my suggestion. At present we have no recourse, and that does create some frustration. I said above that I have copied all of the [controversial] forums I have contributed to, but the reality is that at least one forum this summer or spring disappeared so quickly that I never had a chance to copy it. The evidence disappeared, at least from my viewing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<i>The attacker who called JDM an "effing redneck" was never banned.</i><P>

 

That is false. The person who posted the initial insult was the first banned (for two months), but he hasn't posted about it in half a dozen threads. <P>

 

<i>I personally do not think that JDM was attacking in pointing out that the attack on him reflected ignorance and abusiveness.</i><P>

 

The Terms of Use don't say it's okay to attack other users if you're responding to their attack. "Well he started it" is a lame excuse even for a five-year-old. It does not justify the follow-up posts in which you and JDM von Weinberg repeatedly violated the Terms of Use.<P>

 

<i>At present we have no recourse, and that does create some frustration.</i><P>

You can send your concerns to the site's administrators. That has always been the appropriate method if you disagree with a moderator's actions. Repeatedly posting your false allegations about a "rogue moderator" is a violation of the Terms of Use. [As a point of fact, you have been suspended from (or had suspensions extended) in multiple forums on multiple occasions by several different moderators. There is no rogue moderator banning you for no reason.]

<p>I have not said anything about "He started it" as a way of justifyiing JDM's response. His response was not irrational or retaliatory. <em><strong>It needs no justification.</strong></em> </p>

<p>I have asked Glenn for a review--before you posted to this thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>As for my claim that Norman Naffington was not banned on Casual Photo Conversations after August 18 for calling JDM an "effing redneck," his record of forum postings indicates that I was indeed mistaken. I remember now that I subsequently saw his subsequent post(s) on the Philosophy of Photography forum, not the Casual Photos thread. (Those two forums are often linked in my mind.) His record of forum postings supports that recollection.</p>

<p>I regret the error and any false inference(s) that I might have made therefrom.</p>

<p><a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00e6Wj">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think most people will understand my response which Lannie has cited above, which did not involve any claim or need any defense on the "the other guy started it" front. <br>

as for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can send your concerns to the site's administrators. That has always been the appropriate method if you disagree with a moderator's actions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is anyone here getting <em>any</em> kind of response from the site administrators on such matters? I know I haven't. I know people are busy, but better late than never.<br>

I love this site (at least some of it), but it should not be considered to be above criticism.</p>

<p>JDM, you and I have not known each other except through this conversation as it has unfolded over the last few days. For the record, I, too, have not gotten any response to my latest appeals, and my earlier appeals went nowhere.</p>

<p>Photo.net as we are seeing it displayed above is<strong><em> not</em> </strong>a community. It is an exercise in early internet arrogance, which was tolerated in the era of Phil Greenspun--but that culture will not be tolerated anymore. That is not a threat. That is a<em> fact. </em> There are alternatives. Things have changed since the nineties.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I love Photo.net. I hope that it grows and adapts, but it cannot do that if its corporate culture prevents and blocks rational conversation--in any and every venue, on every forum. <em> <strong>This forum was supposed to be about offering suggestions</strong>.</em> Obviously, no one really wants to hear our suggestions. We offer them, and we get what? Responses with more threatening tones. We do not need that. We can live without it. We WILL live without it.</p>

<p>People who cannot tolerate conversation do not want community. They want a kingdom, a fiefdom, yes, even a dictatorship.</p>

<p>You can have that if you insist on it--all to YOURSELVES!</p>

<p>The rest of us will slip out the back door when you are not looking. If you have been here since the Creation, and that is your only credential for continuing here, then the rest of us are going to look for GOOD JUDGMENT as the criterion for moderating and administration. Simply having been here for almost two decades obviously does NOT translate into good judgment. <strong><em>The above exchange proves that.</em></strong></p>

<p><strong>Adapt or die: that is the law of nature, and Photo.net is not above that law.</strong></p>

<p>We only seek community, and that is all that we seek. There can be no community where "moderation" is just another word for censorship and the total control of all communication--and the banning of dissenters.</p>

<p>I can take it or leave it at this point. I will wait and see what happens--just like everyone else right now.</p>

<p>We are being threatened for speaking out, but the reality is that <strong>PHOTO.NET, not us, IS ON PROBATION.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

That is, it has to<strong> prove </strong>itself to us. So far, there is no real evidence that it is even trying.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>We will not wait forever to see change. We have alternatives, and we have the freedom to exercise those alternatives. If you want us to stay here, then show us why we should.</p>

<p>People are not responding because they are watching--and listening. But, believe me, they are aware of this thread and the way that it has turned--back in the authoritarian direction, just like before.</p>

<p>One more time: This ain't the nineties internet no mo'. </p>

<p><strong>You want to update the site? <em> Then update your way of thinking.</em> Glitz will be no substitute for that.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>