phil hall Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Why oh why do the founders of this this site continually bloke, and exit peoples views ( not matter how stupid or rude) I'm sure the good fellows of photo net are quite able and inclined to shooot any crass, overely, un critacal comments for them selves...... Let the people speak...and the rest defend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil hall Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 i have just been told off for useing to many exclamation marks!........what gives photo net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mário m. rodrigues Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I think it was started to prevent a comment like WOW with 100 exclamation points following it. I think its actualy a good thing. But I respect other points of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mário m. rodrigues Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Ment to say marks not points sorry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce levy Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Because they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil hall Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 Is anyone really offenended by a comment of WOW+ a hundred exclamation marks.............I think not, but that's not the question. let us speak, no matter how purile the comments may be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 So, to summarize, you'd like photo.net to allow any and all comments, no matter how stupid, rude, or puerile they might be? And this would improve the site HOW, exactly? Look up the term "signal to noise ratio" and imagine how it applies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil hall Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 1.my point is the majority will generally cancel out the minority... 2.I do need need to be told what are exceptable commments. I can judge for myself 3.SNR= P signal over P noise=(A signal over A noise)2 4. I am not condoning rude comments, but i do feel that each of us can see the woods through the trees....look that up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Let me try to make a few points that might clarify things a bit. 1. photo.net was founded with the believe that if people wanted chaos, noise and wanted to decide for themselves which comments to ignore, they would have stuck to Usenet News. 2. Why should people have to filter out the rude, insulting, wrong, off-topic, lame stuff? 3. If people are going to filter out the above-mentioned stuff, why should photo.net offer bandwidth and storage for it? 4. If there is a specific forum you have a problem with, contact the moderator. Most likely, he or she is a human being just like you :-) 5. Finally, please consider that photo.net is privately owned and run; we're not talking about the government silencing people with different ideas here. It's more like a private party: we're all invited, but we have to play be the host's rules. If not, we may well be asked to leave, escorted to the front etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmj Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 "front door", that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 You are describing anarchy. Photo.net is owned and has managers (well a manager anyway) and is not even a democracy , never mind the self-governing, supposedly self-limiting, open society you seem to advocate. I doubt whether all this is going to change much- not least because most participants can live with it as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Well said Patrick. <p> <a href="http://www.eslteachersboard.com/cgi-bin/articles/index.pl?noframes;read=1447">Exclamation Points!</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil hall Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 Hi David, how you can call my views anarchy? by saying that i presume free speach is dead...must of us here have the freedom to say as we please and the common sense to disregard which we see as rubbish..... I would just like to judge for myself what is exceptable or not....nothing that is printed here will take away the roof over my head or the food of my plate, niether will it do that to you. So what's the problem in lettting people speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Everyone doing and/or saying exactly whatever they want to with no rules governing behavior is pretty much the definition of anarchy isn't it? Luckily (for some) photo.net doesn't have (many) rules about grammar and spelling...though it does have some. This is a private website, not a public debate - and even public debates have rules of conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namurray Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 You hit the nail on the head, as usual Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilonesome Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Way to go Bob. What you say is exactly right. I personally am tired of private entities being forced to be run like government agencies all in the name of PC. If you don't like the way people who own the site set up their rules, take your ball and go home. Loren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 . Apparently the tools (and time?) available to moderators are base and whole topics with great contributions and photos get deleted when a moderator wants to cull out one interruptive flame war (they think). It makes me less prone to contribute here and look for other venues. It would be nice if there were better "carving" tools for the moderators, and if they would leave something behind to indicate what they've done. Also, the moderators tend to over do it in my opinion. There was a FANTASTIC discussion of the eye - gone due to ... I dunno? I co-moderate for Yahoo Groups photo discussions and I'm happy to volunteer here - contact me anyone if you need help with photo.net. Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography is Free SPeech http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_renwick Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 >>1. photo.net was founded with the believe that if people wanted chaos, noise and wanted to decide for themselves which comments to ignore, they would have stuck to Usenet News. 2. Why should people have to filter out the rude, insulting, wrong, off-topic, lame stuff? << WOW! (originally with 9 exclamation points, but the software wouldn't let me post that. Made my day, it did.) This is exactly why I quit reading Usenet in 1994, and why I pony up $25 for photo.net. I don't have the time to "shooot any crass, overely, un critacal comments." I did have time to learn to spell correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palouse Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Screw PC; subvert the dominant paradigm. Furthermore, and I am unanimous in my opinion, there are far more stupid rules in the private sector, than in the government. Seriously, Bob and Patrick are right on the money with their responses. I for one, am always glad for the few, simple yet civil rules of engagement we are expected to practice here. Makes life good for all. Cheers, and a 1000 points of exclamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Before one involves oneself in an organisation or joins a club it is ( at least in my experience ) normal to read the rules and check out how it operates and if not happy with the results one does not get involved or join. What would be a good addition/change to the "rules of engagement" would be a serious level of intolerance as to bad spelling, grammar and punctuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 . I think we've wandered off the main topic and now are talking about the wrong things here. NOBODY has any problems with "the rules". What we have a problem with is the RANDOM INFLICTION of moderator whim, often at odds with what we thought were the rules, and mostly anonymously (the thread just "disappears" one day), and always at the expense of those who contributed valuable content, and at the expense of future visitors who will not be able to see that content. ===== In other words, photo.net content is getting diminished for current and future participants by whimsical moderators, NOT by unruly contributors. THAT is the original intent and purpose of this discussion. ===== Let's get back on track: How do we influence and empower the moderators to PARTICIPATE and guide, rather than wholesale slaughter of entire threads because the moderator takes offense (regardless of the "rules" I often find - on-topic threads have been canned because of the energy content, not off-topic content, and just like our photos, I find that ENERGY content is a GOOD thing!). The ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! or ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? challenge is NOT really anything more than THE LAST STRAW for some of us when posting. The post engine won't let US insert multiple question marks, but the post engine ITSELF will turn enhanced ASCII characters into multiple question marks all on it's own! See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HNA4 ... for an example of the post engine gone crazy. The point is, rather then the minutia of ! and ? marks, in this thread, what we're trying to engage is the MODERATORS acting MODERATELY and participating and "showing the way" and setting an example IN the threads rather than merely coping an attitude and killing an entire thread with no notice, participation, or effort to "do it another way". We're asking for "another way". And enhancing the post engine to include a spell checker is w-a-y overdue, don't cha think? ===== To refresh the intro: "... Stop the censorship! Why oh why do the founders of this this site continually bloke, and exit peoples views (no matter how stupid or rude)? I'm sure the good fellows of photo net are quite able and inclined to shoot any crass, overly, uncritical comments for themselves ... Let the people speak ... and the rest defend. -- philip hall ..." Can we start again? Basically, why not be a little more patience and let discussions between parties work them selves out? Those NOT interested in such endeavors please SCROLL ON and continue to enjoy those other parts of photo.net they DO enjoy, and stop preventing other ways of working things out from happening between other, otherwise happy-to-do-it, photo.net members. For instance, I may not be interested in, say, medium format, or, ... LEICA (!), but I don't get upset that people discuss those topics ad infinitum, ad nauseum, filling photo.net with content that holds NO appeal for me. Scroll on! All we are asking is that moderators back off and be patient, or participate and set an example, RATHER than delete entire threads. Can we review THAT idea here instead of arguing about rules/no-rules or multiple ! And ? ? Thanks! Carry on ... Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography IS Free Speech http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterblaise Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 . Let me try translating again: To refresh the intro: "... Stop the censorship! Why, oh why do the moderators of this site continually block, and evict people because of their views (no matter how stupid or rude)? I'm sure the good fellows [participating members] of photo.net are quite able and inclined to shoot [down?] any crass, overly un [informed?] critical comments for themselves ... Let the people speak ... and the rest defend. -- philip hall ..." Have I got it, philip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 "check out how it operates" and probably a good idea to look at the MINUTIAE of it all as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil hall Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 What would be a good addition/change to the "rules of engagement" would be a serious level of intolerance as to bad spelling, grammar and punctuation. Thanks for that Bill, perhaps we all should be blonde haired and blue eyed as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now