ADMIN - Removal of thread.

[rob_barker]

John Downie's thread has been removed due to his choice to include

personal insults in his initial question. I apologise to those forum

members who spent time responding to the question asked. There was

nothing in the thread that isn't in the archive. I equally apologise

for not catching this one more quickly.

 

To be clear: Personal insults are not tolerated in this forum. Keep

it friendly and constructive please.

 

John has been banned from posting for a month.

 

Rob Barker (Co-moderator)

[rob_barker]

Further to this the "copyright" thread has also been withdrawn. My apologies to the original poster but the useful content of the thread is all in the archives anyway.

 

Anno has been banned from posting until 1st October 2004. Neil and I will simply not tolerate the level of insult and obscenity that was posted.

 

Rob Barker (Co-moderator)

[rob_barker]

And a third! A different reason this time.

 

Paul Owen's post regarding the f32.net Fall Workshop has been removed as the workshop does charge a fee. The recent commercial threads thread clarified this position - it's against photo.net policy so that's that.

 

This one left me in an awkward position since I am involved in the organisation of this particular workshop, albeit as an unpaid assistant. I want to make this point clear in the interests of transparency

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

What....did I miss a flame war???...DARN IT!!!!!!(just kidding Rob)

 

I am glad to finally see a coherent moderation in this forum. Adopting the policy and courtesy of a brief explanation for the removal of threads I think is a very good idea. Good job bubba...!!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Rob; thanks for deleting the thread this morning. I posted on it early in the morning; defending the Person being attacked. I dont always agree with him; but he does add alot of value to this board; and the attackers were way to caustic against him. It was abit weird that the attackers didnt understand why the man in question answers questions; since he has a certain industry job.<BR><BR> Nobody is perfect; Jorge and I tangled last year on a thread; some mystery bogus emails added to the flames. Differences in opinions can cause one to learn and think; but personal attacks can be depressing to the flow of decent communication. Jorge; hope all is well with you; and happy snaps too.

[chris_hawkins]

I read the thread that was deleted. I'm glad to see it gone and the poster disciplined. Thank you for keeping the level of discourse civilized.

[david_gagnon]

Thank you Rob. Concerning the "copyright" thread, I had read most of it, up to the point where there had been an attempt at an apology and some civility. It shouldn't have gone as far as it did, but evidentally there had been some flare-up in earlier posts that I missed (Thank God). This is just another example of why we must choose our words wisely when responding on this forum (everywhere, actually). I remember several situations regarding ebay late-payers, late senders, or dead-beat bidders, that in composing my emails to them I had to start over several times before hitting the SEND button. It's all a matter of civility and the Golden Rule, even though that's not very popular in today's culture.

 

DG

[mark__5]

paid workshops are not allowed to be advertised on photo.net, then why do I see advertisments in the form of postings for Michael A. Smith's workshops all the time??

[ralph_barker]

Rob (and Neil, too, actually) - a personal comment about the thread deletions, and a question. While I generally agree with the concept of keeping forums "non-commercial" to avoid blatant ads of dubious value, I also believe that the concept can be carried too far, and can actually be counter-productive as far as the objectives of the forum are concerned. Many of the workshops put on by people who contribute to, or support, the photographic community are of interest to the participants here - even if a nominal fee is charged. Some of these folks also contribute positively to the forums here on photo.net. Thus, it might be appropriate to revisit the question with the photo.net owners to arrive at a workable gray area in the middle. Unless, of course, the idea is for these folks to buy banner ads, and raise their workshop fees accordingly. ;-)

 

As to banning individual posters, is it the policy to give warnings to individuals prior to banning them? I'm not criticizing your decisions, I'm just curious about the administrative policy.

[chad_jarvis1]

Whose mother is it that wears combat boots?

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

My problem is that before the forum was moved to photo.net the kind of annoucements involving workshops were considered of interest to the LF community and allowed to be posted. Since the move to PN I suppose that the owners of the site think that advertizing a workshop here is using their member base without paying for it. I could not disagree with them more! The LF is but a small part of the pn site and it is certainly not visited by a large portion of the membership.

 

In any case, I understand we dont want the forum to be riddled with FS ads, but OTOH workshop annoucments, free or not are of value for those who feel a workshop might improve their technique/vision/composition.....or whatever....

 

Ah well is their choice as long as they keep it consistent I am ok with it...a little dissapointed at the course this forum has taken...but I suppose it is ok if it applies to ALL comercial posts.

[psychophoto]

Good Sir Barker,

 

With all due respect, what's with removing all those posts in my thread? And what's

with declaring the thread closed to begin with? It's just that a forum really isn't a

forum, it seems to me, if it's completely censored and edited in an undeniably heavy-

handed manner. I already get the feeling that this post won't make it to see

tomorrow, but really, what's the point of editing out every post you don't see as being

absolutely critical or fitting into your internalized view of what something on the

forum has to be? Last time I checked, the idea of a forum was the free-exchange of

information, ideas, and generalized input, rather than an arena for the exchange of

ideas that the moderators approve of. Sure, moderation is necessary for keeping

things from getting out of hand sometimes, but this is ridiculous.

 

If you want to prove that moderation here is not so heavy-handed as some of us are

starting to suspect, please leave this post here. You (or someone else if it wasn't you)

apparently had your reasons for editing replies out of my thread, so why not share

them with us? The posts in question were not offensive and some of them

expressed valid concerns similar to these. Please don't take this as me being a

troublemaker or whatever - I'm not against you personally. It's just that I find this

trend to be somewhat troubling and I honestly do want to know why this is being

done.

 

All of this *really* makes me miss the days of the forum before the move to

photo.net.

[sal_santamaura]

"Last time I checked, the idea of a forum was the free-exchange of information, ideas, and generalized input, rather than an arena for the exchange of ideas that the moderators approve of."

 

Reality direct from the photo.net Terms of Use:

 

"Despite any appearance to the contrary, photo.net is not a democracy. It is owned and operated by a private for-profit corporation. This document essentially says that the management of that company calls the shots on the photo.net Site and you don't�"

[psychophoto]

OK, Sal has a point, but I still don't think it's right. My main problem with it is that it's

completely arbitrary, or at least appears to be. And that irks me to no end. I guess

we can't have everything we wish for...

[mark__5]

this is one of the reason I will never pay my "taxes".

[rob_barker]

I simply think it's time to move on and get back to talking about large format photography.

[kelly_flanigan1]

I wonder what a child; new to photography; would think about the thread that was removed. Not all readers of Photo.net are adults. Several posters on the removed thread called a person a crude name for ones buttocks/bum. This really type of childish/crude behavior has nothing to do with photography; and sounds like typical whining; "sort of" acceptable todays behavior. Long ago this type of behavior was considered wrong. When I first learned how to develop 4x5" expired WW2 vintage tri-X; the 4H teacher commanded some respect; and decorum in his class and workshop. Wild free discussions were tolerated and welcomed; and not childish name calling.<BR><BR> Ot It is abit odd that the tri-X We used in 4H club expired about 1947; and the Kodak Databook I have is from 1946. BUT; I get screwy emails from greenhorns/web experts in all fields; with links to Kodaks site; saying tri-x was introduced in 1954. The web page crew at Kodak are nuts; and should consult their 1946 Kodak Databook; to learn that tri-X in sheet film existed in 1946. Gee; My ancient 4x5 box of tri-x here shows an 1946 expiration date; my 1946 Kodak data book has two pages on tri-X; but the Kodak web site says 1954......Ok all the goofs who believe the 1954 date is real; your emails are abit wrong, Consult the actual paper handbooks; instead of the web. The actual error; is that maybe tri-x in roll film arrived in 1954; and sheet film alot earlier.