Time to re-focus the scope of discussions on Photrio

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, Matt. It's a difficult job you and other mods have but it raises the issue of whether anyone in the future can talk about anything in which an historical event is used as a pertinent analogy

At some point mods' may need to take a chance and exercise possibly more discretion and ask themselves questions such as: What was the purpose/intention of the analogy and could it be regarded as deliberately provocative by other readers.

It goes back to my point in a post of mine more than 12 hours ago when I first came across this thread, namely the job of a moderator may become more time consuming unless some draconian rules are introduced on what kind of things may be said. We might even end up with a site in which the rules with the best of intentions result in a form of "robot speak"

pentaxuser

 

[George Mann]

While I do understand that many users do not have the means or will to post digital scans of their images, this is the way of the future. Many of us younger photographers shoot only to scan digitally. It may see odd to some more experienced hands but even growing up in the late 80's - the 90's most of my parents photos were digitally scanned at some point. We got the prints that were scanned via proprietary machinery. Digital scanning of analog photography goes a'way back.

I just really like to see peoples work when they talk about their art. Either the photos themselves of the photos of the gear they're talking about. Photography is a visual medium, we happen to be on a digital medium talking about analog photography. It's just the way it is to see the work displayed digitally. I think we've left the days of 'Digital is trash!'

Although slightly off topic to the discussion at hand, I believe that the industries fullscale switch to relying on digital technologies has left the majority of film shooters without access to readily affordable and available analog proccesses, and therefore denies us the ability to fully yield what film is capable of providing us.

 

[Cholentpot]

Although slightly off topic to the discussion at hand, I believe that the industries fullscale switch to relying on digital technologies has left the majority of film shooters without access to readily affordable and available analog proccesses, and therefore denies us the ability to fully yield what film is capable of providing us.

I'd love optical prints of my color negatives but it's really out of my reach for the amount of film I shoot every year. I scan and then send files to a lab if I want a print.

 

[George Mann]

Oh Brother

It's a sad day when we have to resort to big brother tactics to control the unruly among us!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

While I do understand that many users do not have the means or will to post digital scans of their images, this is the way of the future. Many of us younger photographers shoot only to scan digitally. It may see odd to some more experienced hands but even growing up in the late 80's - the 90's most of my parents photos were digitally scanned at some point. We got the prints that were scanned via proprietary machinery. Digital scanning of analog photography goes a'way back.

I just really like to see peoples work when they talk about their art. Either the photos themselves of the photos of the gear they're talking about. Photography is a visual medium, we happen to be on a digital medium talking about analog photography. It's just the way it is to see the work displayed digitally. I think we've left the days of 'Digital is trash!' 'Film is for luddites!' behind and people have come to embrace both sides of the art.

Considering that I set up from A to Z for CBC/SRC Canada's first and only digital radio channel entirely devoted to classical music, I find your "Hey old dud get with the times" argument totally irrelevant. I never said that I didn't like or appreciate all that's digital in today's photography, or that analog is in any way better, I just said that my fun with photography is in the darkroom, not in front of a computer.

And for someone who describes himself as a "younger photographer", you should know that the "this is the way of the future" argument regarding the digitalization of photographs sounds terribly 2004 to most.

Last thing. I don't think we should justify our belonging to this forum by having to post a certain quota of photos each month or year.

 

[mshchem]

I assure you, there is a long list of potential words, and no hierarchy (first being more important than last) would be necessary.

Will private messages be scanned as well?

 

[mshchem]

I think it's good the rules be illuminated, as it were. At the moment they are linked in an unobvious manner. I hope they are more concrete as well.

The system message identifying words sounds good too - and is not unlike how you had it try to make sure people put posts in the proper areas... I'm assuming that's still in place, I've not created a new thread in ages.

Be careful with the automatic limbo after a threshold of reports - this was easy to game with rules in high school (up to and including having someone expelled), and is only easier online.



Been there, have been doing that.



There are a couple models of Sony dvmc-da, and some old camcorders can do this. I'm sure many more devices can as well, lol. My grandfather had put all his home movies on VHS... but I still have the reels, and projector, and even the camera, which still works.

I have all my Dad's Kodachrome slides dating back to the late 1940's they are in perfect shape.

 

[VinceInMT]

In the end, we artists need to see arts. We don't need to see critiques.

In the context of what you are saying, I understand, however, I find critiques are a way to improve my art. As I have mentioned on another thread, after I retired I decided to pursue a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree. I had never taken an art class in my life and, although my undergraduate degree is in Industrial Arts with a concentration in photography, the emphasis was all about technique with little mentioned about “art” after covering the “rule of thirds.”

So, here I am, ready to graduate in May and I’ve been reflecting on how the experience has changed me, and it has. When looking as to how it changed the way I think about art in general and my art in particular, it was a combination of the art history classes I took which gave be a firmer footing on the field but, most importantly, it was the many, many class critiques where my work was scrutinized by both fellow students and faculty, gaining me feedback on both how I created the work and what it had to say.

Ideally, we could do the same here, and I know that is an option in the gallery, but I suspect to too many might use the option to inflate their own egos rather than approaching the work in a formal manner.

 

[mshchem]

I mean this is pretty much free to everyone, even as a subscriber. This is a commercial enterprise, even if it doesn't pay well. I'm a guest here and I understand this fact. I'm more interested in photography than the soapy stuff. So it's probably a good thing

 

[Sean]

Will private messages be scanned as well?

No, we don't have access to them, but members can report a private message if they need to. We have had some get threats via private messages so we like to be aware and take action if needed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I only started looking in the Soap Box because too many good thread were moved there because of postings about politics [the most common reason] or religion an infrequent reason]. The last two years there has been a newer pattern emerge: the same few non Soap Box posters purposely throwing in political comments, such as complaints about taxes being too high, that have no bearing on the subject just to derail the thread. Those non Soap Box offenders have never been talked to much less taken to task for the repeated behavior. Adding a Bozo filter [one that does word searches] will not be able to catch this behavior.

So the question is: What will happen when these same offenders, some of whom have been among the most frequent posters on this thread, who never look at the Soap Box, again start damaging threads that they do not like because they know that they never suffer any consequences?

1. How will those posters be stopped from damaging good thread?
2. What will be done to stop them? A special report thread for that type of action?
3. What will happen to the damaged threads? Will the moderators start looking for the infraction that starts the mess and edit that comment and the rest of that chain or slam the thread shut?

I like the Soap Box and read it, mainly to continue reading banished thread. I would not be heart broken to see it go, but what will happen to good threads that get damaged and not fixed by the moderators, just banished?

 

[Cholentpot]

Considering that I set up from A to Z for CBC/SRC Canada's first and only digital radio channel entirely devoted to classical music, I find your "Hey old dud get with the times" argument totally irrelevant. I never said that I didn't like or appreciate all that's digital in today's photography, or that analog is in any way better, I just said that my fun with photography is in the darkroom, not in front of a computer.

And for someone who describes himself as a "younger photographer", you should know that the "this is the way of the future" argument regarding the digitalization of photographs sounds terribly 2004 to most.

Last thing. I don't think we should justify our belonging to this forum by having to post a certain quota of photos each month or year.

Looks like I poked the bear.

I'll just go back to my bubblegum and rock n' roll or whatever the kids are doing these days.

 

[Sean]

I only started looking in the Soap Box because too many good thread were moved there because of postings about politics [the most common reason] or religion an infrequent reason]. The last two years there has been a newer pattern emerge: the same few non Soap Box posters purposely throwing in political comments, such as complaints about taxes being too high, that have no bearing on the subject just to derail the thread. Those non Soap Box offenders have never been talked to much less taken to task for the repeated behavior. Adding a Bozo filter [one that does word searches] will not be able to catch this behavior.

So the question is: What will happen when these same offenders, some of whom have been among the most frequent posters on this thread, who never look at the Soap Box, again start damaging threads that they do not like because they know that they never suffer any consequences?

1. How will those posters be stopped from damaging good thread?
2. What will be done to stop them? A special report thread for that type of action?
3. What will happen to the damaged threads? Will the moderators start looking for the infraction that starts the mess and edit that comment and the rest of that chain or slam the thread shut?

I like the Soap Box and read it, mainly to continue reading banished thread. I would not be heart broken to see it go, but what will happen to good threads that get damaged and not fixed by the moderators, just banished?

As I see it so far:

1. With an expanded moderation team they will quickly be issued a warning, and be informed of actions that will be taken if repeat incidents occur, for example warning-->warning + short ban-->warning + longer ban-->full ban. Dragging that out much further than that doesn't seem to make sense as the rule is pretty simple.

2. We'll have more moderators to hopefully catch things quickly and prevent them from going off the rails. The report system will be enhanced with an option menu.

3. The infraction will be removed and poster given a warning. Replies to it shouldn't happen due to the rules but we know they will happen. I could see the replies being removed and those that replied told why, but not necessarily 'warned'.

We'll make every effort to be on the ball. I'll be on it full time during NZ hours and we'll have others on the team in other regions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As I see it so far:

1. With an expanded moderation team they will quickly be issued a warning, and be informed of actions that will be taken if repeat incidents occur, for example warning-->warning + short ban-->warning + longer ban-->full ban. Dragging that out much further than that doesn't seem to make sense as the rule is pretty simple.

2. We'll have more moderators to hopefully catch things quickly and prevent them from going off the rails. The report system will be enhanced with an option menu.

3. The infraction will be removed and poster given a warning. Replies to it shouldn't happen due to the rules but we know they will happen. I could see the replies being removed and those that replied told why, but not necessarily 'warned'.

We'll make every effort to be on the ball. I'll be on it full time during NZ hours and we'll have others on the team in other regions.

I look forward to all of that being implemented.

 

[Arthurwg]

Sad fact: Some folks have no idea how to be civil, or even know what that means. For them, insults, name calling and gratuitous attacks are the norm.

 

[wiltw]

As I see it so far:

1. With an expanded moderation team they will quickly be issued a warning, and be informed of actions that will be taken if repeat incidents occur, for example warning-->warning + short ban-->warning + longer ban-->full ban. Dragging that out much further than that doesn't seem to make sense as the rule is pretty simple.

2. We'll have more moderators to hopefully catch things quickly and prevent them from going off the rails. The report system will be enhanced with an option menu.

3. The infraction will be removed and poster given a warning. Replies to it shouldn't happen due to the rules but we know they will happen. I could see the replies being removed and those that replied told why, but not necessarily 'warned'.

We'll make every effort to be on the ball. I'll be on it full time during NZ hours and we'll have others on the team in other regions.

Bravo...this is addressing the offenders, who abuse topics, both photographic and non-photographic.
My own feelings closely mirror those expressed by Sirius Glass...a few children pee in the pool, and the need to control them is the rational approach, rather than closing the pool..

 

[MattKing]

Will private messages be scanned as well?

They never have so far, and I see no reason to do so in the future.
I'll let Sean respond if he has anything in the offing for them. EDIT: It seams he already has.
We have been talking about ways to deal with scammers targeting people posting ads in the classifieds.
And we would like to make it easier for participants to bring moderators into discussions there, when appropriate.

 

[DonW]

Sad fact: Some folks have no idea how to be civil, or even know what that means. For them, insults, name calling and gratuitous attacks are the norm.

Hopefully we can say goodbye to them all.

 

[wiltw]

They never have so far, and I see no reason to do so in the future.
I'll let Sean respond if he has anything in the offing for them. EDIT: It seams he already has.
We have been talking about ways to deal with scammers targeting people posting ads in the classifieds.
And we would like to make it easier for participants to bring moderators into discussions there, when appropriate.

On another photo forum, members are presented with a button to report ads to Moderators, same with scams/spam...offending posts are removed quickly and the posting member is banned from future participation. It seems to work well.

 

[MattKing]

The really frustrating people are those who mostly contribute positively to the site, but still from time to time post really disruptive stuff.
The post I edited above from pentaxuser is different from that - it merely strayed into an area we are trying not to stray into, so I tried to limit the wandering.
(sorry to use you again, pentaxuser to illustrate a point!)
I don't want to have us kick long time contributors out because they have a bad day and find themselves in a single argument about pre-rinsing film.
And I'd like newer members who go over the lines to be able to learn about the lines and get back on topic.

 

[MattKing]

On another photo forum, members are presented with a button to report ads to Moderators, same with scams/spam...offending posts are removed quickly and the posting member is banned from future participation. It seems to work well.

The Report Post function here already works well for that. One of the secret joys of moderation work is that we have tools to deal with spam and scams, and using those tools is really satisfying.
Few of you know how many young, Russian want-to-be brides we have saved all of you from!

 

[wiltw]

The Report Post function here already works well for that. One of the secret joys of moderation work is that we have tools to deal with spam and scams, and using those tools is really satisfying.
Few of you know how many young, Russian want-to-be brides we have saved all of you from!

That might not have been a useful service, for some! Maybe it is time to filter messages about Russian brides, but let the Ukranian ones pass through. It helps to undermine Putin in the eyes of the populace.

 

[Truzi]

Before the Soapbox was the problem, the general forums suffered from editing and "collateral damage." Non-controversial replies that were not in any way political were often labeled as such in the place-holders. I'm glad to hear those will not receive warnings, and look forward to those replies not being mislabeled - as that could give the average user a mistaken impression.

I don't know how the old suspension/ban system worked, but the "new" infraction removal does sound a bit like the old, so I am naturally a bit apprehensive about it leading back to the same place. Hopefully it will work this time.

My thought is to rarely edit infractions and just stick to the warning > infraction > ban. I know this isn't practical, but this thread seems to have gained some brain-storming aspects to it, so why not put it out there.

As far as the infraction system, please don't base any section on threes. Anything except a multiple of 3. The 3-strikes thing is so cliché, lol.

 

[pentaxuser]

The post I edited above from pentaxuser is different from that - it merely strayed into an area we are trying not to stray into, so I tried to limit the wandering.
(sorry to use you again, pentaxuser to illustrate a point!)
.

That's OK, Matt. No problem and no offence taken

pentaxuser

 

[Craig75]

It's a poor time for the board when people like John, Michael, and Greg have left.