A rule I didn't know about.

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Sanford, Jul 1, 2017.

  1. Just had "Blowing in The Wind" thread removed from "No Words" forum because of the rule: No starting new threads in the same forum in a 24 hour period". Too bad, it was getting a good responses.
  2. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    Wondered where it had gone - thought I'd had a senior moment and image ined it
  3. Oh, so it has... and I spent some time trying to decide what to post in that thread.
    But it is a long-standing rule and appears in Walter's thread at the top of the forum posts.
  4. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    When I first joined, in PN 1, I didn't know either. Then however, a message popped up and you couldn't post to start with. Better, I think than having it removed when it has started to "run".
    gordonjb likes this.
  5. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    incredible isn't it? this place is going pair shaped but at least the stupid rules are being adhered to.
  6. I think a warning would have been sufficient.
  7. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    You darned kids stay off the grass! Can't you read the sign? Always obey the rules...

    Mark Keefer and michaellinder like this.
  8. Instead of removing the thread, a reasonable solution would have been to post a reminder to the thread restating the rule (the irony of which would have been that that, in itself, would have been breaking the rules . . . but, oh, how good it might have felt!) or at least simply send a private reminder to the OP and let the thread continue, especially since several of us had already contributed photos to it.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
  9. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Just "insign!" DSC_2945_4604DSC_2945.JPG
    PapaTango likes this.
  10. I hope I got to keep the "likes".
    PapaTango and michaellinder like this.
  11. I already started a new thread on this in the help forum, since I didn't know about this thread.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to just remove the new thread that Sanford started (if at all is necessary, which I don't) instead of removing the old thread that everyone contributed to for such a long time. What is the rationale for punishing everyone for one person's honest mistake? If this kind of blunt hardline actions continue, then I will have to reconsider contributing to the 'no words' forum.

    It is quite clear that Sanford is a passionate contributor to the no words forum, not someone who is intentionally abusing the system. A simple private communication would have readily resolved any issues whatsoever.

    Above all, I expect accountability for such drastic actions as this one. I call on the moderator who did this to come forward and explain his/her actions in clear words!
  12. "Blowing in The Wind" was the new thread. I got an email from p/n alerting me, maybe just locking the thread with an explanation would have been better.
  13. Ok, it somewhat explains the moderator's action, but still doesn't make it right. Why not delete it immediately, why wait and let everyone waste their times before removing. I understand, the moderator may have noticed late, but it's still punishing everyone for an honest mistake. There has to be some 'statute of limitations'.
    gordonjb likes this.
  14. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    I have published several of my own forums, and been the general manager of several others. This is what I know. Moderation is always a balancing act--and considerable thanks goes to those who are willing to volunteer their time and try to keep the cats herded together peaceably. That said, we missed a 'teaching moment' here. It would have been far more appropriate--and circumvented the outcome of not one but TWO threads of upset members--if the moderator had simply inserted themselves into the thread and reiterated the policy--and nicely asked that this not be done again.

    Problem solved.
  15. I tracked down a raw file and worked it up this morning specifically for that thread, so yeah way to go discouraging participation at a time when members are fleeing in droves. Bad call.
    You can always count on PN for draconian enforcement of the rules. Even when the site is falling apart the rules must be upheld.
    Tony Parsons and Norman 202 like this.
  16. Start a new one...if its been 24 hours that is.
  17. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    I may get thrown out of here over this--but here goes.

    The best part of PN for me these days is the 'No Words' board. Like Gordon, I often look through my NEF files for something appropriate--and end up finding one or two images that will work for my professional portfolio--the ones that are for sale and situated in various venues. It is a learning experience and a chance to have fun with my photographic peers.

    I understand the reason for the rule--there are attention 'prostitutes' (instead of a better word beginning with W) who unchecked will monopolize a thread or board. I saw many years ago WHY this rule was necessary--long before any of the current moderators or Glenn came on board in their roles. Give some people an inch, and they will ruin things for everyone else.

    Yet, it is demonstrable that those of us who participate in the NWF are by far the most consistent, regular, and participating members of PN. We are also the most disciplined. That said, all of us there are possibly the most valuable asset to the forum side of "interest" operations. Please, don't crap on our heads, given the absolute mess this place has turned into since the transition to PN 2.x.

    Long time contributing members--those who have led to the success of this venue--are dropping off in droves. This is undeniable. We are deluged with newbies that ask such questions as "Should I buy vintage Kodachrome" or "What lens shot this photo." Please... I understand that this venue is one that should be welcoming and informative to all--but if the skilled and interested leave due to what honestly must be the greatest calamity in site upgrades in internet history--there is an issue.

    We are now 5 months or more into the transition. So many things are unworkable, broken, difficult to navigate, or ignored. We are told of an imaginary "team" of developers and testers--both have proven themselves either smoke or incompetent. Multiple members have sent notes of distress to the "owners" at NameMedia. None have received a response. This information circulates on the backside of things--this is not just one or two people who are disappointed or have an axe to grind. Yet when posted publicly in a thread--forum administrators give us no response or acknowledgement that our concerns are valid. Darkness is good.

    I have been here, and a supporter since 1999. I was a reader (sandbagger) prior to that. In my estimation, the course and approach we are seeing here is simply appalling. NO SITE SUCCEEDS WITHOUT THE CONTENT THAT MEMBERS GENERATE. Our content is the value that owners capitalize on. Fact...

    Yes, let's make sure that no one uses a bad word. Let's delete threads or posts that we do not like--or challenge the administration. Great strategy for success. I am bereft of what course is being plotted for this venue except for its ability to appeal to trendy, mobile device users. And factually, where are they?

  18. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    I have a question. Where can I find the rules for the forum, such as the one saying a person can't post more than one "No Words" thread in 24 hours? Thank you.
  19. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    No expert on this "Brave New World" half a dozen searches didn't bring up anything on No Words or even Terms of Use. A sort of former Soviet Conundrum -- everyone a violator.
  20. The top thread in the No Words forum is from Walt, the moderator of the forum, and contains the so-called guidelines. It's pinned so it remains at the top of the list of threads but I don't know how many people would think to look there for forum rules.

    Just in case some of your default views of the forums are different and you can't find it, I've reproduced the short text from it below:
    Bill Snell likes this.

Share This Page