What do we have to do to get the Off Topic Forum back

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Charles, I like your way of thinking, but you're advocating that each contributor come up with something new and original on each of their responses and from what I'ld read in quite a few OT threads and was kind of irritating at least for me is no matter how contentious or controversial responses quite a bit of the "picture words" dearly and desperately needed a thesaurus and a creative writing primer.</p>

<p>IOW too much repetition. </p>

[William Kahn]

<p>In case you might think we're alone in this, here's a moderator's post from another forum where I hang out: <br /><br /> <em>New enforcement of an old rule -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you all know, forum guidelines and site rules state that there are to be no personal attacks on another member, specifically: "Don't attack or flame others. Treat people with the same respect you'd expect from others. Name calling is unacceptable as well as slandering, degrading, threatening or harassing other members. Hate speech will not be permitted or tolerated also. 'Attack the issue, not the person'. " Recently there has been a rash of such occurrences, so I am here to announce stricter enforcement of this rule. The staff is giving everyone a second chance to live up to this rule. From here on out, however, if any member attacks another member in a personal manner as determined by the staff, it's an automatic warning, and any further attacks are a TOS violation. There will be no exceptions. Everyone has a clean slate, I hope you all take advantage of it and treat each other with the respect and courtesy we expect of you all</em> <br /><br /> With this kind of rule in place, with some proactive (not to say aggressive) moderator attention, why wouldn't the OT forum be able to function smoothly?</p>

<p><br /> I think I mentioned in my first response to the demise of the OT forum that the discussions would likely just migrate to other forums. Sanford alluded to that. Just look at this thread. Was I wrong?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So William, who attacked whom in this thread? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Name calling is unacceptable as well as slandering, <strong>degrading,</strong> threatening or harassing other members. Hate speech will not be permitted or tolerated also. 'Attack the issue, not the person'.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How do you distinguish between a difference of opinion from the subjectively interpretable words you listed? There have been comments toward individuals in the past that come across as backhanded one liners implying one person's interest over a certain topic is seen as odd, baffling, obsessive and so on and so on but they never use "degrading" sounding words in doing so.</p>

<p>Sometimes this type and tone in the comments could be construed as that person's sense of humor, but it's still left open ended as to what exactly they meant which makes it even more frustrating. All in all it had nothing to do with the topic at all but more about commenting on that person's character and maybe idiosyncrasies. </p>

<p>There's seems to be some folks who don't like their authority on a subject questioned when someone else offers a POV from experience on the subject that contradicts the authority's knowledge on that subject. That's when that authoritative person decides to go tit for tat in future responses without directly calling them names or being blatantly demonstrative about their attitude toward the poster who originally offered a difference of opinion they construed as questioning their authority. </p>

<p>Is that kind of subtle interaction considered as "degrading" and thus going to be called out on or is it just going to be over the obvious name calling? </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"With this kind of rule in place, with some proactive (not to say aggressive) moderator attention, why wouldn't the OT forum be able to function smoothly?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>William, it's certainly possible to create an apparently harmonious community through law enforcement, but I don't believe such an approach is appropriate for PN, and here's why;<br>

<br>

I believe PN has ambitions of growing into a profitable powerhouse global site, and every such site currently in existence had to deal with these same problems. Their solution, by overwhelming majority, is to create platforms conducive to a positive site culture toward a self-policing community. <br>

<br>

Your quoted policy might work, or even be necessary for a small owner-operated site, but I know of no global sites with such policies and probably for good reason. For starters, you'll need tens of thousands of policemen, if, for example, YouTube adopted those policies. <br>

<br>

I think the problems we're experiencing is the challenges faced by every transition - growing pains, if you will. There is a new site design in the works and no doubt big plans accompanying it, and some of our old ways will simply not be scaleable - site moderation being one of them. <br>

<br>

It's a complex problem much larger than it appears, and how PN handles this will in no small part determine its future growth boundaries. </p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>Like Sarah, I miss the cooking ideas (among other things). I found it fairly easy to bypass the political stuff and just read the ones that wouldn't raise my blood pressure. And I need a recipe for dough that I can freeze. And a good (easy!) way to make my own sauce. I moved again and haven't found pizza we like out here. I'm also tired of anything I know how to cook and I miss Lupo's photos and recipes. If we can't have the OT forum back, can we have a food section?<br>

I've also realized that I've been dropping in here less often since the OT forum was closed. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Michael, your last post is pretty compelling and convincing, but I'm curious where you're deriving the apparent "tea leaves" to be so assertive on the future business model of the internet in this regard.</p>

<p>In addition to PN administration's statement that we're to talk to folks here the same as we would talk to them in person goes against the motives and desires behind why folks communicate online. I mean I have not met one person in the flesh in my entire 54 years that talks at the length, breadth and depth the way folks do here on PN. So that social requirement has lost its meaning. One person's kindness is another person's boredom is another person's passion for a subject.</p>

<p>I'm totally against anyone referring to someone using specific words such as stupid, simpleminded, ignorant, boneheaded, naive, crazy, etc. But the "intellectuals" that frequent this site can formulate a sentence structure and choice of alternate words that's just as hurtful and maybe even more so because it shows insidious intent behind the clever authored underpinnings that technically lets them off the hook. OTOH a lot of what goes on here is just folks riffing off one another's input just like Charlie Parker answering Miles Davis in a jazz improv session.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>"So William, who attacked whom in this thread?"</p>

<p>Tim, if you mean <em>this</em> thread, no one. As to the other site where the quote originated, I don't know. Topics in the "Open Discussion" forum there sometimes had titles that were certain to attract, trolls, predators and carrion eaters, so I stayed out of those...</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>""just like Charlie Parker answering Miles Davis in a jazz improv session""</em><br /> Great ! that is the ultimate argument for getting the OT forum back as long as the obvious rules of no name-calling and the like is respected. We don't need a listing of forbidden areas and subjects. It is a totalitarian idea that's does not fit to PN.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Tim, I have an opinion about the Internet that is no more or less valid than any other's. My opinion is in part shaped by observation through digested and internalized resources that I have taken an interest in, and much of those resources are from Internet bigwigs who have elected to share their knowledge and success paths in the form of their writings, seminars, talks or interviews. </p>

<p>What we have here is a situation that was perceived to be a problem which required action, and the resulting chain of events have snowballed to become potentially an even more serious problem when the initial event might only have been a tempest in a teacup. Nevertheless, it now gives us an opportunity to address bigger issues, which is a good thing. </p>

<p>It is now the site management's responsibility to interpret the scope and intractability of the disagreements this event has triggered, and about what the OT forum means to the site by weaving through the pervasive, endless, and often repetitive comments. Unfortunately, there can not be a simple "there is no right answer" thesis as with camera debates. Instead, management must come to a responsible judgement moving forward with the full understanding of the consequences of a wrong call. </p>

<p> </p>

[parv]

Since the closing of "Off Topic" forum, this forum entitled "Casual *Photo* Conversations" has became the de facto off topic receptacle, for the worse.

 

Speaking of which, this thread should (have) be(en) in "Photo.net Site Help" forum.

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Since the closing of "Off Topic" forum, this forum entitled "Casual *Photo* Conversations" has became the de facto off topic receptacle, for the worse."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Parv, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe this forum has evolved for the worse. </p>

[William Kahn]

<p>And, finally, in the immortal words of Rodney King,</p>

<p>"Why can't we all just get along?"</p>

<p>;-)</p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>""just like Charlie Parker answering Miles Davis in a jazz improv session""</strong><br /><strong>Great ! that is the ultimate argument for getting the OT forum back as long as the obvious rules of no name-calling and the like is respected. We don't need a listing of forbidden areas and subjects. It is a totalitarian idea that's does not fit to PN.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Admin, I strongly recommend reading this post a multitude of times. </p>

[unangelino]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Interesting to note that most of the contributors to this thread are longer-term, paying subscribers... Pnet, take note...</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

Pnet would seem to take note of very little. As evidence I submit the lack of a macro forum.

 

Really? A Minox forum but no macro forum? No, clearly Pnet is not taking note of much.

 

[AmyHelmick]

<p>I miss it and would like to see it back. I think it did add to the "community" feel of the site...</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Why can't we all just get along?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Why the question ? We are getting along !</em><br>

</em><br>

The funny thing is that even in the OT forum we were mostly getting along. Sometimes in disagreement, but getting along. That is what a community is all about. If we all agree on everything, there would not be much reason to exchange viewpoints anyway. A consensus forum might be a feeling-good-forum, but unbearably boring, for most.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Some seem not to have understood, or accepted, that Photonet is not a national forum (no names!) but an international one, on internet. What is accepted as just normal discussions in one part of the world is sometimes perceived as controversial in another. Politics, religion, global warming, abortion, gay marriages, wars or guns, are being discussed as part of normal interaction between most citizens in most countries, but immediately branded as "hot button issues" in others. A truly international photonet should never be allowed to be dominated by one uniform political correctness and bad habits. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

By the way I also miss discussing and sharing cooking and good food. Maybe we could do it here in this forum and hide behind a photo or two :))</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Pnet would seem to take note of very little."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paul, my experience has been quite different. <br>

<br>

A simple feature-request can take time to implement, for example the "back to top" button in a single-page view when a thread grows. It's something I requested that took a while to implement, but it got done. <br>

<br>

A macro forum request has greater site-wide implications which will require more careful consideration in PN's current structure - one in which the site determines categories as opposed to Flickr's user-created groups. <br>

<br>

This is the kind of thing that I'm sure is being considered as the site evolves, as only an infrastructure change will be able to realistically accommodate your request. <br>

</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>Michael, Veering off course a little and sounding like the OT Forum but... I would like there to be a way for people to get an alert if someone critiqued my photo and I thanked them or replied back. Or maybe there is and I overlooked it. I get the alerts when someone replies, but would like them to get an alert when I thank them for for taking the time to comment. Guess I could put in a request or someone will fill me in and tell me that we already have that feature :-D</p>

[dave_s]

<p>What photo.net really needs is some sort of a kill button, by which you can silence people who act like jackasses. There's people I'd like to silence on photo.net (and it's actually not the political ranters). And there's certainly people who would like to silence me from time to time. </p>

<p>The technological challenges shouldn't be insurmountable. Facebook has this feature (no, Eddie, I don't really care that you and your wife are eating at the Olive Garden), and also some internet chat rooms.</p>

<p>But what Gup and Sarah and others have said is correct. Bring it back. If people act like jackasses, give them a time out for a couple of months, and take away their OTF privileges.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p> <a name="00cB8w"></a><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>, Nov 22, 2013; 05:50 p.m. ...If we all agree on everything, there would not be much reason to exchange viewpoints anyway. A consensus forum might be a feeling-good-forum, but unbearably boring, for most...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anders: It's a good thing you and I were able to post our centrist positions to add diversity to the responses. I can't understand why others couldn't agree with things as much as we did. We wouldn't be having this problem with the Off Topic forums. It's really nice to have a non-American friend like you although I'm not exactly sure where I or anyone else could find you at the moment.</p>

[rconey]

<p>Paying member. Bring back the O.T. forum. Getting the opinion of a bunch of photographers is not the same as just a bunch of opinions. I could support a 2 or 3 strikes and you are out rule. Throw them off the Pnet island if they are that offensive. Or maybe just off the off Topic forum. I recall skipping some threads that were annoying but never being personally particularly annoyed.</p>

[bobbuck19]

<p>Another paying members opinion, bring it back, for what its worth I miss it.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""I'm not exactly sure where I or anyone else could find you at the moment.""<br>

<br>

Right there, Alan, as mostly. If not, ask NSA.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I believe a "Patrons Only" forum is a mistake as much as it sounds like an attractive policy. </p>

<p>From a business viewpoint, corporations looks at the cost of acquisition and the lifetime value of a customer. The math becomes pretty rudimentary if you're running a cellphone service - $30/mth over a lifetime. </p>

<p>Photo.net, however, is a hybrid of free and elective patronage by appealing to members' sense of value and community. The value of a customer to PN is not entirely in their patronage but rather in large measure by the content they create, therefore, by restricting their ability to create content diminishes the value of those customers. </p>

<p>Another reason is the cost of, and access to patronage. The current $25/yr is a carryover based presumably on operating costs in the U.S., but that amount can easily equate to a week or month's salary in some countries, in addition not everyone globally can subscribe even if they wanted to because PN only accepts popular credit cards and PayPal.</p>

<p>Finally, I believe the notion that "paying members contribute higher quality content" is a flawed attribution. PN is filled with non-patrons in many forums actively helping fellow members with their photography needs, and the availability of an Off-Topic lounge to engage in chitchat might well serve as a place to recharge ones batteries. <br>

</p>

[sgust]

<p>Michael, thanks for mentioning the "Back to top" button. I too have been missing something like it for a while, but never noticed when it appeared. On the issue of subscriber only access to the off topic forum, I don't think that anyone thinks that non subscribers wouldn't have anything to offer. Rather, the odd troll or jack@$$ tends to be found in that subset of contributors. Hence, excluding them would make the moderating of the "problem" forum easier. Or, maybe I'm wrong and the complaints were about paying members, in which case I'll shut up.</p>