Why won't you remove this.

Why won't you remove this? I've reported this via abuse@photo.net

and it seems by your administrative inaction that you're supportive

of this sort of childish behavior.<p>

 

<a href ="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?

user_id=1083979">Offensive anagram</a><p>

 

I've written you about this and other forms of personal attacks on a

couple of occasions and the moderator and administrators do

absolutely nothing to remove abusive comments in any threads I

participate in. Why's that? But I know the moderator is active as

I'll see him remove comments in other threads.<p>

 

Thank you and I'll look forward to your reply addressing these

issues.<p>

All you need to do is add comments un-related to anything photographic:

you love Bush; you hate Bush; you love Iraq during war; you hate Iraq during war. This will cause removal of some discussion(s.)

This isn't one of those "Fight Club" things is it?

Ellis. You're an example of the demeaning insults that I speak of which should be removed. No this isn't a "Fight Club" sort of thing.

 

I brought it to the administrations attention in private where there was no publicity and it should have been removed. But neither Jeff nor the admistration will remove it. So I'm bringing it to public attention to see if they'll remove it or not.

 

Now it's their choice whether or not to let the anagram and continuing insults to stand.

Gerald.<p>

 

Here's a link to the last thread I added to the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AFqJ">Philosophy of Photography forum.</a> You decide if there's any political commentary in the thread or if the insults are warranted and should be allowed to stand.<p>

Ellis, Thomas has a fair question. Why would you allow someone to set up a fake p.net account that specifically references and attacks Thomas?

 

 

P.net has a policy that personal attacks are not allowed. Relatively mild threads questioning the likes of .[. Z are deleted. But this patently derogatory, very personal attack on Thomas remains online?

Kind of funny that the person launching the first personal insult in the thread that Thomas referenced was, in fact, Thomas Gardner. Though, admittedly, it was a relatively minor jab compared to many of the accusations he makes about people who disagree with his views.

I deleted those threads without any knowledge of your complaint. Deleting a user requires higher privileges, and consequently can only be done by a few moderators.

Mike. Your following me to this thread shows that your comments are personal in nature.

Emre.

 

The comment still stands on the thread in question which I posted a link to.

 

The personal attacks that are allowed to stand against me are many. Just like Mike and Ellis have followed me to this thread and made their personal attacks, I expect others to show up with their attacks and I also expect for these personal attacks to stand, unedited as well.

Following? It pops up at the top of the list of new answers, I click on it, I see you, as usual, crying about insults when you were the one who took the first shot. You didn't find any sympathy on the Philosophy forum since you'd badmouthed pretty much everyone there on a regular basis, so you're bringing the "poor, mistreated Thomas" shtick to another venue. How horrible that someone should point out the nature of your game . . .

And surprise, surprise, here you are. My question is for the administration Mike, not you, let them handle it.

If you have a complaint about abuse, send an email to abuse @ photo.net

 

Otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised to find non-admins repoly to a public thread.

The actual optimal solution to this problem would be to remove certain poster(s) from this website. It would cure a lot of problems.

 

Anyone who causes the forum moderators a disproportionate amount of work is known as an "expensive user". They consume more than their share of resources. Whether they do this directly or indirectly doesn't matter. When such users become more of a burden and a liability than an asset, it's time to thank them for their contributions, but regretfully inform them of the fact that they have outstayed their welcome.

 

Very few users fall into this category (thankfully).

Perhaps you could create a NEW forum (even unmoderated!) specifically for Random Ramblings and Pointless Arguments. Then when one pops up anywhere else, just send it to the RR&PA forum.

Bob

 

I sent a support check in on the fifteenth of November, you should have received it over two weeks ago.

 

Thank-you for correcting this matter.

 

Thomas

I don't handle subscriptions, so I've no idea about payments. Mailed in subscriptions can take quite a while to be credited and that probably applies double over the holiday period when mail is slow and people take vacation time.

 

I should add that when it comes to decisions about moderation, subscriber status is not taken into account. Decisions to remove a post, a thread or even a user are made without regard to whether someone is a paying member of the site or just a vistor. This is very clearly and explicitly stated in the terms of use agreement.

the offending anagramer seems to have been removed.

"I should add that when it comes to decisions about moderation, subscriber status is not taken into account."

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention; a point which I'm aware of.

 

I only ask/expect that everybody, including moderators, are held to the same standards which you expect of me personally. If everybody were held to the same ridged standards, I would hope this will go a long way in eliminating much of the time consuming problems you rightfully allude to.

 

I have no idea how much time mododerating these forums takes nor how long it might take before one gets sick and tired of editing unnecessarily noisy threads.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to look into this matter.

"Decisions to remove a post, a thread or even a user are made without regard to whether someone is a paying member of the site or just a vistor."

 

Well, so much for "free market capitalism". I'm a paying member so my bullhockey should take precedence over other's bullhackney..., no? ;)I mean, for example, the folks Bush selects for his cabinet are primarily based on how much they and their supporters spent towards funding his election & re-(s)election so, shouldn't we paying members have first BS rights and...er...rights of first re(bullasheeotin)fusal?? End of questions and all erratic spelling attempts.

Bob,<p>

 

re: "Anyone who causes the forum moderators a disproportionate amount of work is known as an "expensive user". They consume more than their share of resources. Whether they do this directly or indirectly doesn't matter. When such users become more of a burden and a liability than an asset, it's time to thank them for their contributions, but regretfully inform them of the fact that they have outstayed their welcome."<p>

 

What arrogant hostility! So, someone who intelligently has an honest difference of opinion with the moderator(s) is as unwelcome as an offensive lout whose only purpose is to offend?<p>

 

An "expensive user!" Thanks for revealing such contempt of your patrons.<p>

 

VL

You're most welcome.

 

There are over 270,000 registered users and 1 site administrator who has a small handful of volunteer helpers. If every user required attention every day, the site would collapse.

 

Since there are about 43200 seconds in a 12hr working day, each user is then entitled to 0.16 seconds of attention. If it takes 2 minutes to deal with a user complaint/query, that user has used the time of 750 other users. That's fine once in a while, but if a single user consumes these resources on a daily basis then there's a problem.

 

The "expensive user" model isn't mine. If you run any type of business or organization, you'll be familiar with the concept.

How did you manage to get from:

 

"Anyone who causes the forum moderators a disproportionate amount of work is known as an "expensive user".

 

to:

 

"So, someone who intelligently has an honest difference of opinion with the moderator(s) is as unwelcome as an offensive lout whose only purpose is to offend?"

 

?

 

It's about time and effort, without considering that offensive louts have firm delusions of intelligence and honesty.

Should I have taken the Blue pill?

Let me out of here, one person in this thread, appears to have lost his!

>This isn't one of those "Fight Club" things is it?<

 

I guess if his name were Jay you'd take a different view.