Forum threads designed to provoke..

[Sean]

Hi all,

I am a bit concerned over some recent threads and how they seemed designed to provoke people and cause controversy. This is sometimes known as trolling or baiting. We all know how these threads end up and I feel they should have no place here..

It's pretty easy to tell when a thread is a genuine attempt to make people think vs. something designed to cause controversy. If you feel a thread has been designed to cause problems, then please feel free to make use of the "report" button in the bottom right corner of the posting. I also suggest not replying to the thread and even adding the thread owner to your ignore list.

Thanks, Sean

 

[blansky]

I find this thread highly controversial.

What about my first amendment rights. What about my right to carry a gun, or club a baby seal.

I have rights, damn it. Hey I'm speaking to you. Don't you ignore me. I got shit to say. And it's damn important.

Ah hell, never mind.

Hey kid, you out there on the street. Your dad still sleeping with your sister? Your moms a hottie. Wanna come in.

Shit it's the UPS guy. Hey dude, your truck looks like%%%$.
You not busy. Looks like you've gained a ton of weight. They drop that rape charge yet.

Ya later,

Hey, you on the TV..........................

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Sean

I have followed all this over the last week (I have decided to not get involved) one observation that I have ,would be that using ones real name and location, not exact address , should be mandatory for axcess to these wonderful debates. I have no problem with voices of differences , but when arguments start , knowing who is talking is important to me. I can't see the point of shooting the shit with an alias.

This may stop some of the stupid baiting that has gone on lately.
By not being a registered subscriber , axcess to the gallery is denied. So why not extend it to the forums? Posting ones real name should not be such a big deal.
By having a real name not an alias attached to these debates may stop some of the bullshit.

Is this a practical idea or not???

 

[jd callow]

I may be sick, and it may make me look bad, but I have gotten a real kick out this last batch. Of course I have also been beating my brains out in front of the computer and those post have been a good area for me to vent without (hopefully) hurting any of the real members.

 

[Jorge]

In high school, Mike began his career in photography, in which he has excelled.

Thanks for the laugh David.....

 

[L Gebhardt]

Which threads are we talking about here. The only thread I have read lately that had controversy is the Passport thread, and I don't think that was started to provoke.

 

[blansky]

Well David,

If that's him, we should ban his ass. What do we need an old dustball like him on this site anyway. There's enough old farts here already with their stupid old antique cameras. Let's get some fresh blood here.

:
:
:
:
:
:
j

Michael

 

[Brac]

Hi all,

I am a bit concerned over some recent threads and how they seemed designed to provoke people and cause controversy. This is sometimes known as trolling or baiting. We all know how these threads end up and I feel they should have no place here..

Thanks, Sean

I've picked up from this site references to some of these but the only one I've come across personally and which I guess is one of those you refer to is that on the Pope. Yes I had my four penny worth on that and don't intend to go back into it. But the fundamental point is that a thread on a political or religious leader, however well meaning the instigator, is bound to be controversial for some. To my mind there are more appropriate forums to express ones feelings and it would be better if APUG stuck to (analogue) photography. After all people rightly jump up & down when anyone here starts a thread on digital photography so why can people apparently raise any subject they want if it's done in "the Lounge" and which have absolutely no relevance to photography? Will we be having someone expressing congratulations to Prince Charles & Mrs Parker-Bowles on their forthcoming marriage? (yes I expect we shall) But seriously would not the answer be to strictly limit threads to things clearly of photographic relevance - that would cut down the problem to some degree.

 

[L Gebhardt]

But seriously would not the answer be to strictly limit threads to things clearly of photographic relevance - that would cut down the problem to some degree.

It would cut down on the problem, but it is nice to learn about the other members here in ways other than pure photography.

 

[blansky]

BRAC wrote

Will we be having someone expressing congratulations to Prince Charles & Mrs Parker-Bowles on their forthcoming marriage? .[/QUOTE]

Actually that wasn't what the flaming was about. There were a couple of thread with el Duce in them.

I'm just happy that Prince Charles was able to find someone as ugly as himself to marry. He certainly scoured high and low for that one. She's a beaut.



Michael

 

[Dave Parker]

I've picked up from this site references to some of these but the only one I've come across personally and which I guess is one of those you refer to is that on the Pope. Yes I had my four penny worth on that and don't intend to go back into it. But the fundamental point is that a thread on a political or religious leader, however well meaning the instigator, is bound to be controversial for some. To my mind there are more appropriate forums to express ones feelings and it would be better if APUG stuck to (analogue) photography. After all people rightly jump up & down when anyone here starts a thread on digital photography so why can people apparently raise any subject they want if it's done in "the Lounge" and which have absolutely no relevance to photography? Will we be having someone expressing congratulations to Prince Charles & Mrs Parker-Bowles on their forthcoming marriage? (yes I expect we shall) But seriously would not the answer be to strictly limit threads to things clearly of photographic relevance - that would cut down the problem to some degree.

One think that you seem to forget, the 'Lounge' was specifically set up for subjects that are no photographic in nature, and the thread on the Pope, was posted in the appropriate area, and was not a post designed to provoke.

The threads that Sean speaks of, were specifically designed and did accomplish what they were intended to do, and that is to build a controversial rhetorical interaction, and the individuals who posted it and continued it on, knew that it would do this.

Dave

 

[Flotsam]

You know what I like about APUG?
Whenever there is big A vs. D arguement or Zone System vs. Don't Even Use a meter slap fight or the ever popular Whack a Scarpiti game appear to be consuming the whole forum, there is _always_ a consistant flow of the smaller, honest, informative Q&A threads on the small topics of analog materials and techniques that makes APUG the unique and invaluable resource that it has always been.

Personally, I advocate a an "Ignore This Thread" option that would allow me to flush the stupid, purposely disruptive bitch fights from my APUG experience.

 

[mikewhi]

Hi all,

I am a bit concerned over some recent threads and how they seemed designed to provoke people and cause controversy. This is sometimes known as trolling or baiting. We all know how these threads end up and I feel they should have no place here..

It's pretty easy to tell when a thread is a genuine attempt to make people think vs. something designed to cause controversy. If you feel a thread has been designed to cause problems, then please feel free to make use of the "report" button in the bottom right corner of the posting. I also suggest not replying to the thread and even adding the thread owner to your ignore list.

Thanks, Sean

I would hope this would be the exception rather than the rule (the user of Reporting, that is). I like a more free forum for debate\discussion. But, when someone gets profane, abusive, etc. I think Reporting is a good idea. It would help Sean establish a pattern of behavior to support 'termination with prejudice'. I would hope Sean knows when that proverbial 'line' has been crossed. I don't want to see stuff here that I see on the newsgroups, that's for sure.

-Mike

 

[TPPhotog]

..... Personally, I advocate a an "Ignore This Thread" option that would allow me to flush the stupid, purposely disruptive bitch fights from my APUG experience.

I'd love that facility if it's possible.

 

[MattCarey]

By an odd coincidence, I decided to check out the usenet newsgroups last week. I was struck by how the trolls really have messed things up wherever there is no moderator. There are still some danged knowledgeable people there, but it is not something I want to read. It made me all the more grateful for APUG.

The sad thing is that usenet is a great resource for searching for information. When I went on my recent "soft focus lens" search, I did my usual google-groups (dejanews) search and found some good stuff. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is getting so low that I don't want to read the more recent threads. When I did a regular google search, I found great information--from APUG posts. The lack of trolls and bickering makes this site worthwhile.

Lastly, I don't think that Sean makes enough off this to cover the hassles involved with keeping the site running, much less to compensate for babysitting. So far, Sean seems to be taking a very reasonable approach. However, if Sean decides that justice should be swift and definite, woe be to the trolls. They will get no pity from me.

Thanks Sean, Thanks APUG!

Matt

 

[Donald Miller]

BRAC wrote

Will we be having someone expressing congratulations to Prince Charles & Mrs Parker-Bowles on their forthcoming marriage? .

Actually that wasn't what the flaming was about. There were a couple of thread with el Duce in them.

I'm just happy that Prince Charles was able to find someone as ugly as himself to marry. He certainly scoured high and low for that one. She's a beaut.



Michael[/QUOTE]


Michael, Just goes to show once again that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I just wish that he would have gotten an eye exam before now.

 

[removed account4]

i actually thought the zone-antizone thread and the "i dare you to shoot 35mm w/o a meter" thread were kind of funny. that guy really knows how to rattle a cage -

sean, is the arm that gives the "dope-slap" almost there ?

 

[Bob F.]

BRAC wrote
<snip>
I'm just happy that Prince Charles was able to find someone as ugly as himself to marry. He certainly scoured high and low for that one. She's a beaut.
Michael

Oy! That's my future King and Queen you are talking about!

...
...
...

Oh crap....

Am I too old to emigrate, Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Heeeeeeeelp!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

His ass has been banned more than once on this site and several times on others.

 

[Bob F.]

His ass has been banned more than once on this site and several times on others.

That's why I'm surprised he keeps coming back. Sean: can't the software ban his IP address? If he's on broadband he will almost certainly get the same IP address every time he connects into his ISP.

Bob.

 

[Flotsam]

Matt,
It is funny how many time I search Google for information on a photographic topic and wind up being directed back to APUG.

 

[blansky]

"I keep tryin' to leave and they keep pullin me back in"

Al Pacino, in something or other.

 

[James Bleifus]

I also suggest not replying to the thread and even adding the thread owner to your ignore list.

I finally added that zone thread owner to my ignore list since it was obvious he was baiting people. I hope it's the first and last time I use that feature. Still, I thought the Zone was handled brilliantly.

Michael, don't you have a limerick for Prince Chuck and his soon to be bride?

Cheers,

James

 

[Flotsam]

If you ignore the thread owner, does it zap the whole thread from your list?

 

[TPPhotog]

If you ignore the thread owner, does it zap the whole thread from your list?

Nope ... just what he or she posted in it