Photo.net and the crisis it is in.

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by paul_hunter|3, Sep 7, 2008.

  1. I can't believe photo.net would allow a person like Lex to have any sort of power here and are are three examples
    why:

    1.) "STFU" locktite applied. (Lex action)

    STFU = Shut the F*ck Up. So he is telling photo.net paying subscribers to Shut the F*ck up. That is
    inappropriate behavior.

    2.) "I don't have time to babysit" (Lex qoute) So basically he is communicating that paying photo.net subscibers
    are children who need to be babysay. That is condescending.

    3.) Telling paying subscribers what they can and can't talk about. (Lex Action) I am confused, is Photo.net
    forums here for its paying subscribers or is it here for the moderators and their whims? People obviously like
    talking about film vs. digital, and if a good number of them are paying subscribers I think they should have that
    choice.

    I was a paying subscriber. I even bought a gift subscription for some stranger. These three reasons are why I
    am no longer a paying subscriber. Shame, I only got through one month of my subscription. I no longer have a
    place to share photographs like these telling other photographers about film, filter, and development combinations.

    Sincerely

    JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ)
     
  2. JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) has been suspended and banned several times under various aliases for repeated infractions of photo.net policy. When he rejoined yet again under his real name he was specifically asked to participate constructively and to refrain from trolling and flaming. I bent over backward to accommodate JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) because of his education in photography and stated plans to teach. Most moderators would have refused to allow him to rejoin after repeated previous infractions. I wanted to give him another chance. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of participating constructively on photo.net.
    The fact that he chose to join again under yet another alias specifically for the purpose of criticizing photo.net while misrepresenting his own pattern of behavior speaks for itself.
    Previous aliases include:
    Jay Jay
    William Goldstein
    Jack Tripper
    Ted gofferenger
    Caesar Augustus
    Jay Paul
    Jason M.
    In this thread, Larger grain please?, one alias, "Jay Paul", responds to a question posed by another alias, "Jason M." This is classic trolling behavior.
    Many other threads had to be edited and even deleted to remove offensive, profane and non-sensical posts under various aliases. These have all been recorded as HTML files and screen captures. These repeated violations of photo.net policy were what prompted me to resume activity as a moderator of these forums earlier this year. And these documented public actions do not even include the private correspondences, which further support the justification for declining to accommodate JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) here. The b&w forums normally require very little maintenance but JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) repeated disruptions have consumed more time this year alone than all other problems combined over the past several years.
    It would not be in the best interest of JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) to pursue this activity.
     
  3. Retaliatory remarks. I wouldn't expect anymore from Lex
     
  4. I have never been banned in my entire life at photo.net, but I suppose Lex has a monopoly on the truth. Never once have I had trouble accessing any account.

    I am not all those people Lex says I am. That is Slander.

    One last thing: How does any of this excuse your behavior?
     
  5. How does any of this excuse your behavior? You did not address a single thing I said.
     
  6. Oh I forgot, you're the big, bad Lex, no one is to question you nor do you have to justify your behavior.
     
  7. I start a war if you want. I have my own websites. I will tell the world exactly how photo.net operates. I will start on APUG. I am a photography teacher. I don't have to tell my students anything, I will simply show them what happened. Lex, your behavior will be shown to the world, to both the internet and my classes.
     
  8. I'll say, "look students, photo.net is so professional they tell their paying subscribers to STFU."
     
  9. You don't address your own bad behavior and you forget one very important thing, in the "Film Vs. Digital,"
    posting of mine, I didn't actually do anything wrong ! Did I !?
     
  10. All I did on photo.net was I was mean to a couple of people. Whoo Hoo! I have got nothing to lose. Go ahead, make it public Lex.

    I think I'll write an editorial to the newspaper with some of that photo-journalism I learned. Headline will read, "Photo.net openly tells its paying subscribers to STFU." Below it, it will read, "don't believe me? just go to the website, you'll see a, "STFU," right on it."

    Go ahead, lets do this
     
  11. Watch out everyone, cross Lex and he'll try to ruin your life, permanently, over it.
     
  12. "I think I'll write an editorial to the newspaper" So 'Paul' which of your various aliases are you going to use when it comes
    time to sign it?
     
  13. Holy cow Paul, give it a rest.
     
  14. Jack Tripper? At least he could have used good, unused aliases like, Richard Nixon or Monty Python.
     
  15. i believe in self moderation. in the absence of sensible individuals we have to rely on moderators. it is this need that gives rise to lex. so we are our worst enemy. let us be a little more moderate when discussing photography. this should eradicate the need for major moderations.
     
  16. "...rise to lex..."
    I'm not sure I'm comfortable being described in terms of a Star Wars episode. Am I on the light side or the dark?
     
  17. Seems like this guy needs professional psychological help. What a drag!
     
  18. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    If you're lucky, the dark.
     
  19. I suppose if I'm going to be portrayed in a negative light, I'm in the right forum.
     
  20. Ouch plus ouch equals pain. So with that in mind, why self inflict?

    Any forum on the internet these days is basically a case study in human behavior, so you get all kinds. And the
    moderators are not robots or gods, so they are not perfect, why expect them to be? Some of them can sometimes push
    buttons and make you want to push theirs with a boxing glove in a manner of speaking....

    But photography should not bring anger out in you Jason, that is not what it about, I told you that.
    So you take the good with the bad and most important, make the right decisions for your self.

    If this place is too hard for you to take, well, photography was *fine* before the internet, so get back to it.

    And dude....you posted it in the B&W film forum, that is not exactly fostering good will.
     
  21. This happens everywhere... unfortunately it is the nature of larger forums on the internet. That said, there is too much good stuff here for me to walk away.
     
  22. Photo.net is made of folks; its the dysfunctional ones that whine like children and get out ot line and cause threads to be pruned or axed. Being a "member" or a "hero" doesnt mean one has extra rights to act more like a jerk. There are many "Film Vs. Digital," threads going each day going back over the last decade; probably 1000 to 10000 threads. Each day somebody starts a new thread on the same old topic; like its some type of new thing. Folks seek answer on how large they can enlarge their Acme XYZ megapixel cameras image; but HAVE NO CLUE as the what the viewing distance is; since they have no goals for their image. If its a question about a daisy BB gun hitting tin cans; a child can at least run a simple test to see what distance(s) they can hit the can with a 20, 50, 80 percent chance of hitting it. Running a actual test was what folks did in the 1950's; before dumming down DNA arrived. Today folks would would rather ask another; or walk over hot coals than run an actual test. It use to be that whining in public was considered childish; and that folks where not afraid to do some actual tests. Many threads like dead tree limbs need to be cut off; ie nuked; they add no value to photography. They do show a heck of alot ot negative childish whining; alot of duffousity; alot of an agenda. Folks personal *crisis* has no value here; its negative energy; whining.
     
  23. JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) aka Paul Hunter, Jay Jay, William Goldstein, Jack Tripper, Ted gofferenger, Caesar Augustus, Jay Paul, and Jason M., is clearly showing his contempt for this website. This thread is now closed, but it will be left here so that anyone who wants to research his photo.net postings will be able to do so. This thread will be indexed by Google and anyone searching on his name should be able to find it. We have not altered or edited any of his words.

    All JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) accounts have been closed here, so he really has no need to return. We have made it quite clear we would like him to leave. Though he says he had never been banned, we have closed numerous accounts that he has taken out under numerous names. Photo.net only allows one account per user. Some people just don't get the hint. If we have to take additional measure, we will.

    Those who wish to read the rules for the forums (several of which JM (Name withheld at user's request, 12/19/08 - LJ) is violating here) can do so at http://www.photo.net/site-feedback-forum/00QbV5. The correct avenue for complaints about moderation is to first discuss them with the moderator, and if you are unhappy with the moderator's response, then send email explaining your position to Josh Root who is the director of community services here. Josh reads all his email and takes whatever action he thinks is appropriate with regard to complaints. You can also use the "Contact Photo.net" link which appears on the footer of every page on this website. Note that very few moderator actions are taken in isolation. Moderators and site administrators frequently discuss moderation actions, especially when involving site members who repeatedly cross the line of acceptable conduct. There are no "renegade, lone wolf" moderators out there wreaking havoc with the forums and brutally abusing users for no good reason. We watch and we listen to all reasonable complaints.

    There are appropriate ways to deal with moderation issues, but this isn't one of them. That's why this thread is now closed. There is no crisis. It's just a minor tempest in a teacup. Now let's get back to the discussion of photography.

    Bob Atkins - Photo.net administration.
     

Share This Page

1111