Off Topic Forum

[LineMartel]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 15, 2013; 03:59 p.m.<br>

... a place where we can get better acquainted to extend our community interaction beyond photography through our hobbies, interests, activities, or help one-another if we have unusual problems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am quite new to the OT and that is exactly how I saw it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 15, 2013; 05:22 p.m.<br>

Could someone here point to an OT thread that was the most influential in getting the OT shutdown? I couldn't find anything that warranted it. The thread that was accused of mentioning racism as the cause for that one particular thread being shutdown didn't seem all that serious. Long winded? Yes. But abusive? I didn't feel offended or get upset by anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some posts have been deleted. My point of view on this is that the thread itself or the topic where not inappropriate, but some people get angry by their own interpretation of others comments and at times it turns into personal attacks. Some people can't seem to be able to state their opinion without attacking anyone who dare to differ... I personally never felt offended... but I don't easily get offended... hopefully we can restore some civility, respect cultural differences and continue to enjoy the interaction.. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[AJHingel]

<p>""hopefully we can restore some civility, respect cultural differences and continue to enjoy the interaction""<br>

<br>

Not to forget that the Off Topic discussion have to a large overwhelming degree been respecting "civility" and cultural differences and been enjoyable and interesting for most, despite the often strong disagreements between participants. </p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>I'm not sad to see it go. It seemed like cable news "debates" of people with different views on politics and economics. People talk about the "death" of photo.net and I think the Off Topic Forum helped create more animosity among members and drove some people away. At least it's driven me to only check the site once a week instead of a few times a day.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"At least it's driven me to only check the site once a week instead of a few times a day."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Walt, The Off-Topic forum is nothing more than a tiny corner on this site. It shouldn't drive you to avoid this site any more than a couple of parking lot fights in a shopping mall will cause you to avoid the mall, unless there was nothing in the mall to attract your business to begin with. </p>

[colin carron]

<p>I am sorry to see the Off Topic Forum has been suspended and hope that normal service will be resumed shortly. Perhaps if some participants are deemed not to be playing nicely enough they could be put in an Off Topic Sin Bin till they cooled off?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, is right then, Photonet is made by cliquish photographers. Most of us participate in several cliques in the same time. The Off Topic clique just happens to be the most in view, and maybe the most active. The No Words clique is just more kind of quiet, although photos sometimes speak with capital letters !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry about the confusion caused over my misspelling the word cliquish. I was debating on whether to use "clannish" instead but didn't want the "KKK" inference due to the racism radar here.</p>

<p>And to be more specific about the word "cliquish" I was more referring to how some regulars appear to know each other by way of who they decide to argue back and forth with and to what extent like some old married couple while quite a few others including myself are continually ignored no matter the extent of their years as a subscribing member.</p>

<p>It's like in Michael's two links of folks feeling quite comfortable posting there old photos whose names I wasn't familiar with. I mean who and where are all these people and I how come I don't know them or had discussions with them in these forums. This is why I switched to the "Unified View" to increase the odds I'ld come across newer people that just might like to intelligently argue/debate/discuss things of interest with me and quite a few others only to find it ends being a discussion between two regulars.</p>

<p>This is one of the reasons I don't start topics. I seem to draw two regulars, JDM and Matt Laur, most of the time where soon afterward the thread just dies with a couple of more contributors. Then some other regular starts a discussion on a subject I couldn't possibly know anything about and seriously doubt anyone could possibly have any authoritative information to make it interesting and the thread gets over 30 posts. Long drawn out threads over small talk subjects is still a sociological mystery to me and a waste of time.</p>

<p>For the length of time I've been a member I've had my suspicions a lot of these people are really friends of PN employees and/or employees themselves hired to add prattle to make this site look like its humming along in order to build traffic.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Just to add I think social networking on this level of intensity going by the length of thought out responses here compared to other forum based sites may be an unintended exploration/experiment slowly revealing over time how we humans project meaning and inference into what is or is not a real and meaningful human connection seeing there's no commitment and all conducted within the safety of our homes.</p>

<p>We don't lose anything but are we gaining anything in the way of long term relationships. When I get off the internet and go about my daily routines I still can't see you all as people because my mind has been tuned to associate that concept visually and audibly and sometimes olfactorily which obviously isn't part of the online human experience in this case.</p>

<p>I'm concerned the longer I continue socializing this way, the more I'll bond with people who are basically invisible whom I'll probably never see or meet up with. Am I hooked or irreversibly conditioned to only being able to interact with people in this manner? Will I have withdrawal symptoms if I quit cold turkey? I'm a bit afraid to find out.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, the Internet and your local neighborhood are not mutually exclusive, though I don't know what the limits may be of your local neighborhood. I spend time on the Internet, enjoy it, learn from it, relate to anonymous, faceless people however best suits me. Then I get out, take a walk, go for coffee, shake a hand, meet folks for dinner, attend a gallery opening, go to a movie with friends, go to a free concert in the park. </p>

<p>What I've gained here is exposure of my own photos to a broad audience and exposure to a similarly broad array of others' photos. I mostly participate in critique discussions, with some Philosophy thrown in for good measure. </p>

<p>I've learned a lot about my own work, seen a lot of possibilities in some of the work and many of the critiques I've run across. </p>

<p>Photography is significantly visual and the Internet isn't a bad place to communicate visually with some supplemental verbiage tacked on.</p>

<p>Lots of options.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I'm not sad to see it go. It seemed like cable news "debates" of people with different views on politics

and economics. People talk about the "death" of photo.net and I think the Off Topic Forum helped create

more animosity among members and drove some people away.

 

Couldn't agree with Walt more. Despite multiple warnings, most threads of a political nature sink into

impolite, rude, and oblique backhanded put-downs and behavior that stifle differing views/outlooks, send people away, and cast photonet (a *photography* forum) in a very negative

light. Usually by the same handful of people. When that has been brought up in the past, the response is

there are plenty of other photonet discussion forums, just visit those instead. Selfish...

[LineMartel]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2071139">Anders Hingel</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 16, 2013; 01:53 p.m.<br />Not to forget that the Off Topic discussion have to a large overwhelming degree been respecting "civility" and cultural differences and been enjoyable and interesting for most, despite the often strong disagreements between participants.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Anders, as I said, I never got offended by any comments posted on the OT forum... but when people do get offended the conversation tends to degenerate... not that a heated argument is unhealthy... and since offending posts are removed, how could we possibly say if the action taken was the right one. I, for one, want to believe there was a valid reason...</p>

 

[gordonjb]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>I still regularly communicate with many of the people in the threads you mentioned from Micheal's links. I just don't do it here at PN. Some of them have moved on, others still post occasionally. None of them as best as I recall have ever been active participants in the forums. There are a lot of people who utilize PN but never post in forums. A forum like the OT forum has a small group of participants. I seldom bother with that forum unless someone posts an interesting link. After awhile it gets to be that you already know where the usual subjects stand on most of the contentious topics.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>It is my view, and probably the modern Internet view, that maintaining a cohesive group of any size over time through moderator policing is all but impossible, or will have unintended consequences, so we're starting to see completely unpoliced communities based on the premise that any community numbering more than 2 will self-police. </p>

<p>YouTube is a good example of that. </p>

<p>Somewhat in the middle are communities like Facebook where users are given policing power by way of privacy settings to in effect create cocoons to isolate themselves.</p>

<p>The moderation of our community is probably a carryover from the early Internet days which has resulted in a relatively civil atmosphere in its forum interactions, but it has also limited itself by creating a default "white collar, middle class" demographic which over (calendar) time will evolve into an inflexible geriatric ward to the exclusion of the emerging youth. </p>

<p>Photo.net probably doesn't have the critical mass to adopt the YouTube free-for-all model, but some combination of YouTube's comment ratings and adopting some of Facebook's privacy settings, together with mild moderation, will likely serve us well and reduce site burden. If for example a comment is voted with high numbers of "thumbs down" then the recipient of the comment will less likely feel offended because the anonymous votes will have vindicated him, likewise trouble-makers will be made quite apparent and perhaps shamed into better behavior.</p>

<p>At a minimum, it should avoid having to take drastic and unpleasant site measures because the combination of (anonymous) self-policing and moderator oversight will likely be more effective. It will also be non-discriminating toward age and gender thereby creating a more open and receptive community without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater. </p>

<p> </p>

[carashilaire]

<p >Hi all,</p>

<p >I apologize for the delayed response about Off Topic. There have been many discussions about the forum, what to do with it, and if it can be changed in tone. There are just so many complaints about it. We get notes from members often when they decide to leave and the reason is most commonly because of the hostility that exists. Although we all have interests outside of photography, this is ultimately a photography site and hostility towards one another in the Off Topic Forum is not useful or helpful to our fellow photographers. Instead, it is a breeding ground for toxicity and behavior that would not be allowed in most parts of our lives, let alone in other forums on photo.net. When communicating with one another in the forums and via critiques and any other part of the site, ask yourself this: "Would I respond like this in real life? Would I be so uncivil face-to-face?" Let that be your guide. </p>

<p >For now, the Off Topic Forum is disabled because it needs a break. We realize it will seem unfair to those who are continuously respectful and play by the rules and for that I am sorry. There will be another forum created at some point to discuss interest-related, non-photographic topics, but we will not host a place to berate one another's political views or other unnecessary conversations that will only lead to combative behavior. Surely there are other sites where things like that that can be discussed rather than here at photo.net. </p>

<p >Photo.net should be a place where people can freely ask questions and discuss issues regarding photography in a supportive environment. </p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Hi Cara,<br>

Thank you. It would have been helpful to place this explanation in the OTF when it was disabled, then close the discussion. That can still be done for the benefit of those who visit that forum, but don't come here.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

Just one comment to Clara's message, if it is allowed.

 

Clara is the boss and she decides. For each one us to decide how to react to the changes she introduces. Some are

sure to further improve Photonet, others less so. Most of us have experiences it before, and are still here, maybe because

it is still one of the best places for photographers to be on the web, with or without relevant off topic discussion.

[akgraham]

<p>I'm sad to see it go. It's been fun. I wish there were some way to eliminate the polemics but not throw the baby out with the bath water.</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>It may be that the majority of people into photography today, unlike many at photo.net, just want a place to post their photos for display and for praise. It is probably better that we don't get all that nasty with each other as we age into obscurity and irrelevance.</p>

[ray .]

I disagree that the forum was too offensive to sacrifice what was often times a lively and thoughtful

discussion. There has always been from time to time confrontation and over the top comments on some

of the photography forums. People seem to be able to become enemies and get offended over

disagreement about photography gear. I agree that those who were offended with threads on the Off

Topic forum maybe ought to just not visit Off Topic, just like you would choose not to spend time with

anything else you didn't like. Not sure why that concept is so difficult to understand. I do realize, I

suppose, that this site is a business, and the owners/caretakers have the right to make the rules as they

wish.

 

I do hope that Off Topic can continue so that people can post topics and questions that are non-

political in nature. I always seem to have some kind of question not directly related to photography I could use some input on.

[shutterbud]

<p>There are oodles of fora out there which make p.n look like a Victorian Lady's Tea Party. I don't think we do too bad. I also feel that freedom of speech must mean freedom to be told youre talking out of your hat! Most of the time I skim past many posts or gloss a thread for substantive points andor attitudes. We are all adults here and we all know how deep the rifts are between people. What gets me is when people come ot with an outrageous statement, get called on it and then cry foul. I'm used to people disagreeing with me!<br>

:-)</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>One man's chaos is another man's democratization.<br>

<br />At its core, PN is about the horizontal affinity among its participants and their bilateral exchanges. It can either be forced to function under the rigid controls of vertical management, or it can be a natural product of vertical facilitation by way of positive site-culture influence.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<blockquote>

<p>Although we all have interests outside of photography, this is ultimately a photography site and hostility towards one another in the Off Topic Forum is not useful or helpful to our fellow photographers. Instead, it is a breeding ground for toxicity and behavior that would not be allowed in most parts of our lives, let alone in other forums on photo.net. When communicating with one another in the forums and via critiques and any other part of the site, ask yourself this: "Would I respond like this in real life? Would I be so uncivil face-to-face?" Let that be your guide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> People do not equate their physical and virtual lives and therefore don't behave the same way inside their bodies as outside of them. Inside their bodies most people do not belong to a talking club or debating society, very few discuss things with strangers, and very many rarely speak at all to others except in passing about nothing or to negotiate for something they want. AFAICT the off-topic forum is not more or less hostile than any other active community of disembodied voices on the internet, for better or worse. For a lot better, IMO, and seeing as no one reads the off-topic forum for on-topic discussion or knowledge, I don't see how you can possibly know its utility to others. Now maybe the off-topic forum is off-putting to advertisers and maybe it isn't. Don't know, can't say I care, however, I understand why whoever pays the bills here might want more advertisers or more of whatever it takes to increase revenue. I have to say though that this is the first special interest site intended for a general audience that I know about that doesn't have an off-topic forum. Perhaps they exist but if they cater to my interests, then you won't find them in the first few pages of a google search. Just saying.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Count me as sad to see the OT forum go. I believe it is a mistake to think of forums as "photography forums" or "gardening forums" or "classic car forums." The owners of such are kidding themselves. Forums are gathering places, "pickle barrels," around which people seek friends, chatter, gossip, entertainment, and a place to vent. Sure, the online version of this olde tyme social relation isn't the same as the corner bar, or the coffee shop, the general store. Sure, people adopt different rules of engagement than they do with in-person encounters, but that doesn't in the least change the meaning it has for people.</p>

<p>I have to imaging the biggest complaints about OT came from people who did not regularly post in OT. Why they can't simply skip it and move on is not too mysterious to me. It's a form of resentment that others are engaged in something they can't do well, or maybe dislike. Who was being harmed? The regular OT posters seemed to be having a swell time. If they weren't, why on earth were they posting? </p>

<p>Why would anyone consider that OT jibber-jabber as vicious or nasty, or dangerous? It's theater. People with some skills at writing, or debating, or arguing, love to play out their parts to the maximum. If you went to a fencing match, would you jump back in some exaggerated horror and wonder, "how can they be so violent to each other?" IT WAS FUN, people. No, not for you who don't enjoy verbal fencing, but for those who DO. I have never laughed as much at the keyboard as when reading and replying to posts in the OT forum. I don't know what kinds of sense of humor some of you have, but I have never taken anything as an actual offense. How could I? - it's impersonal.</p>

<p>We live in an era of righteous indignation at EVERYTHING! You name it, people are righteously offended. Breast feeding, smoking, protesting, political discussion, arguments, dissent, loud talk, religious discussion, and the Mother of All Offending Speech - any talk of "morality!" Why is this? Where did all this righteous indignation come from? It came from Corporate-America and their minions in public relations who are creating the culture of calm soothing InternetMuzak, and fun, and endless credit, and let's all go buy some new cameras! Let's be sure none of us risk offending anyone! Let's <em>pretend with all out hearts and souls </em>the whole world is nothing but a Big Happy Camera Store! </p>

<p>"Kettling" is a new term in our culture which describes how police physically manage crowds at protests. They form a chain or barrier and literally herd and funnel everyone into 'cold pools' to damp the ardour, kill the protest, quiet the angry voice, water down the dissent, dissipate the heat, far away from the center of the action. Well, there are more subtle forms of kettling too, which can be applied wherever there is heat of any kind. OMG! Some folks are saying disagreeable things in that thread! It's such a threat to our sacred peaceful commerce! Yes, yes, yes, let's all go buy a new camera and stop all this kicking and screaming - - it's dangerous! </p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>It is probably better that we don't get all that nasty with each other as we age into obscurity and irrelevance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(After much laughter) THAT's exactly the sort of thing I will miss by the drowning of the OT forum in the bathtub of righteous indignation.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish there were some way to eliminate the polemics but not throw the baby out with the bath water.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine a world without polemics and polemicists! I really hope that wasn't a serious desire. You have me worried now more than before I began reading this thread. </p>

<p>The international folks know this all too well - Americans are being infantilized. It's a frightening process that is probably beyond the turnaround point already. "Happy talk" must be everywhere, at all times (anyone seen the morning shows lately on TV?). No confrontation! No adult topics (sex, religion, politics, morality) - even if they are the central point of life! No strong language! <em>"Can't we all just get along?" </em>they sang, languidly.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>No confrontation! No adult topics (sex, religion, politics, morality) - even if they are the central point of life! No strong language! </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This isn't true at all. This an incredible amount of confrontation, strong language and adult topics all over the web, particularly on political and news sites. That has nothing to do with photo.net though, which is supposed to be a photography site. Maybe you missed the name of the site.</p>