Photonet Subscription $$$ = Protection???

This one has been bugging me for awhile, and I've restrained myself

from asking the question because it's in essence a 'no win' scenario

for Brian, Bob, and staff. However, I'm seeing it become an

increasing problem in the forums, and one I'm sure the moderators

here have had discussions about.

 

Basically, how does one handle a 'paying' photo.net subscriber who

contributes nothing in terms of either related photographic

knowledge, nor any proactive discussion? Trolls are one thing....but

because a troll gives a check to photo.net why should the rest of us

have to put up with their continued irrelevant comments? There's

about half a dozen here who I don't even think own cameras, yet seem

more interested in promoting a certain agenda on the periphery of

photographic content.

 

This is not a complaint to so to speak, but more a question for the

staff here into how we 'peasants' should 'react' to the 'trolls on

the payroll'.

Banning a 'paying customer' from a forum (in my case, the Nikon forum) would give me pause, but bad behavior is bad behavior. I 'pause', and then I ban. (Actually, I can't remember the last I banned someone. A warning usually suffices.)

I suspect you'll just have to put up with it. If it's sufficiently off

topic or constitutes abuse, report it and hope the moderators get

rid of the offender.

 

Lots of people have had to tolerate your fabrications, insults, and

personal attacks over the years. You're just going to have to

suck it up like the rest of us . . .

I don't know about other moderators, but I tend to give subscribers (and heroes, and long-time members) a bit more benefit of the doubt, and maybe a third chance after the second chance. Or ban them from just one forum for a period of time, rather than completely.

 

On the other hand, we have banned subscribers before, and for certain transgressions that are less "grey" than trolling (such as a copyright violation, or a racist comment), they don't get any more latitude than anyone else, as far as I am concerned.

Actually I don't think it's a subscriber/non-subscriber issue. I basically treat everyone the same, but maybe I subconsciously give subscribers a "tad" more benefit of the doubt. Clear violations of photo.net rules however are treaded on an equal basis.

 

I think what Scott's refering to though is more the "useless comment" or "focused adgenda" phenomenon rather than outright violation of rules by advertising, using offensive language, "ad hominem" attacks an so forth. It's the guy who posts how good Kodachrome is no matter what the original question was. If someone asks about a digital camera, they say to use a film camera and Kodachrome. If someone asks about Velvia, they say Kodachrome is better. If someone ask how to modify colors in Photoshop, they suggest analog printing from Kodachrome and if someone aska about travel in Italy they reply that the traveller should take a good supply of Kodachrome with them.

 

A few of the very worst offenders have been asked to leave, but only when they have stepped over the line of acceptable conduct as well. I'm not sure if any were subscribers. There are certainly others whose presence on photo.net would not be missed if they were to go, but it's tough to ask someone to leave because they are annoying rather than actually violating the rules of conduct.

If I am ever acknowledged as having subscribed (2 months ago but as yet not officially listed)I will definitely be a shining example of good behaviour. Don't know if I will renew my subscription though because of the disregard of my initial act of subscribing. So, maybe Brian, you could think of my subscription as an anonymous donation which is exactly its status right now.

Quiche, unfortunately for some reason getting technical issues resolved is a slow and painful task these days. It seems the photo.net staff is overwhelmed with work to do.

 

Scott I tried to email you the other day about something, seems your email doesn't exactly "exist" according to whats in your profile.

If I hadn't already had lunch your name might have made me hungry, Quiche.

<i>It's the guy who posts how good Kodachrome is no matter what the original question was. If someone asks about a digital camera, they say to use a film camera and Kodachrome. If someone asks about Velvia, they say Kodachrome is better.</i>

 

when i read scott's post, one of the people i thought of was the one Bob was alluding to above in this post. heck, i try to spend as little time as possible on the film/processing forum consequently. and then, i read bob's post. thank's for the laugh, bob!