What's happened with moderators since my last 2007 presence here?

[Witold Grabiec]

I've been away for a few years and just now logged back in. So I've been poking around to see what I've been missing for all these years. While most is still good old same, I came across this thread

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97451-Stricter-Guildelines-Enforcement-Now-In-Effect/page1

which ultimately I have found disturbing. Perhaps that's been the case of recent, but the attitude shown by some (moderators not excluded) during this thread was quite contrary to thread's intent.

Let me first say, that I have always appreciated the existence of the LF forum , the huge financial and personal effort that's been needed daily to support it, and all the personal compromises moderators have to endure to do their job. And I have no issue with what the first post stated in the thread. However, what I question is some resposnses, including from moderators themselves, that to me verge on calling for a ban. Here is why:

Kevin Kolosky made a remark at one point, that forum may not be all it could be given the strict adherence to forum guidelines, which is decided upon by the few volunteering moderators, and that alone could stiffen discussions. He further went to state that, if the forum is not all one expects, then there are technologies these days to start their own. This was quite immediately struck by several replies from Sal Santamaura, which ultimately ended with

"I respect your right to, within the rules and in a civil manner, post about what you think. In this case, I have no respect for what you think on the subject. I've posted my disagreement with what you think in a civil manner that's within the rules"

Being contradictory within a single sentence is one thing, but when one openly DISRESPECTS another's right to state what they think, it isn't civil at all. In fact, it may well inflame a discussion without further warnings. Do we need to wait for such to develop further before a ban is called for? Or is it too much policing from my end?

The thread itself was an announcement and the most unfortunate part of it was the last post by Ken Lee:

"The moderators don't want to spend the time worrying about the 0.1 % of members who can't or won't abide by the guidelines.

The tiny fraction of members who can't grasp the intention of the guidelines - or object to them as a matter of principle - will be (and have recently been) escorted out.

This thread is now closed, for the same reason that it was created: to save moderator time. Now, back to... Large Format Photography.

Warning: If you start another thread on this topic, you will be banned."

The last (warning) part I find disrespectful to everyone who pitched in (or who may have come across this thread later on) and it suggests to me that Mr. Lee failed to comply with his own original statement. Unless, of course, we are actually being faced with the new moderation style, one that simply goes: I'm the boss because I can "escort you out".

Now, am I being banned for bringing it up again? Is this what we want to agree with as calling a civil way of making everyone feeling at home and free to state their views? It isn't an issue for me to have politics and religions removed from the site, it most certainly is a right call in my view. But we all need to be careful with what and how we state it. The timing of our posts could prove critical too.

I have been on many forums over the years, photography or not, but I have NEVER seen a moderator go to such an extent to show his true colors in the end. Or was it a misstep not exactly thought through before posting? Same as some who had misspoken, only later having to apologize?

[Kirk Gittings]

You are taking this thread completely isolated from the context in which it was created. You would need to read all previous threads for about a year or two previous to really understand the genesis of it.

[Witold Grabiec]

Kirk,

I've always appreciated how you ran moderation. I did read MOST of the thread, granted not all. However, the way it was ended by Ken is absolutely appalling. Forum's behavioral guidelines are part of taking the opinionated culture of diverse minds into a respectful direction. It CANNOT be done by suggesting that a thread on such topic can no longer be started started under the penalty of being expelled. When such statement comes from a moderator, it makes it that much worse.

It has just been suggested to me, through PM, that I delete this thread because of, well ... the threat that ended it. I've had a few of my own mishaps while posting replies, but I usually had the guts to make it right. However, we all have opinions and when they are just that, we all need be able to see it as such and nothing more. I felt that Kevin had a valid point and came across nobody taking his side (I don't believe I'm the only one in agreement). If anything, he came under attacks, after which he tried to re-state his thoughts in somewhat different ways. But in the end, up until the end, it was about a few taking up a thread that, I also agree, should have been a locked announcement. However, it was likely to start a thread on the same topic anyways.

In the end, I made this thread ONLY because of how it was ended. It had no place to be. As you know more than anyone, moderating a forum, especially a frequented one, takes a lot. But it is not possible to moderate effectively, if a threatening statement is made of the mentioned kind. And THAT is the actual topic I wished to bring about.

[BrianShaw]

It has just been suggested to me, through PM, that I delete this thread ...

You should. Most of us are tired of this topic and really don't welcome a re-discussion of something that has been discussed to death. You appear to have missed a lot over the years. Welcome back, but enjoy the forum for what it is not what you remember it to be (or wish it was).

p.s. I got a 5-day ban for writing something that really didn't violate the rules... but I may have incited it by stating that it was "on the line". That experience did a good thing for me, which was to better understand how the slightest hint to "trolling" can escalate and cause grief to those kind enough to moderate this fine forum.

[Sal Santamaura]

...several replies from Sal Santamaura, which ultimately ended with

"I respect your right to, within the rules and in a civil manner, post about what you think. In this case, I have no respect for what you think on the subject. I've posted my disagreement with what you think in a civil manner that's within the rules"

Being contradictory within a single sentence is one thing, but when one openly DISRESPECTS another's right to state what they think, it isn't civil at all...I suspect you fail to understand the subtle nuances of language in my post.

Here's what it said to Kevin Kolosky, broken down into individual thoughts:


I respect your right to post your opinion in the thread.
I disagree with and have no respect for the specific opinion you've posted about actions the moderators are taking concerning the thread's subject.


It's very important that I used bold italics for "what" and you quoted me making the larger phrase bold italics. My construction, in a very civil manner that didn't attack Kevin personally, communicated that I have no respect for and disagree with the opinion he presented about the moderators' decision. That's a very different thing than saying I don't respect him or his right to post that opinion.


...I felt that Kevin had a valid point and came across nobody taking his side...

The reason nobody came to Kevin's defense is because he insistently posted that the forum should change to be what he wants it to be, not what the owner and moderators want it to be. This forum is a private venue, where there is no freedom of speech, whether you, Kevin or anyone else thinks otherwise. If the moderators determine that certain things violate the rules and posting them will lead to being "escorted out the door," they're perfectly correct and within their rights to do that escorting. Kevin's persistent failure to accept the rules is disrespectful behavior. It was his lack of respect for the forum community and the rules that prompted me to keep posting. I stand by everything I wrote in that thread -- if Kevin, you or anyone else feels so strongly that the anarchy of an unmoderated forum is preferable, feel free to go start one of your own.

[BrianShaw]

... see what I meant?

[Sal Santamaura]

... see what I meant?No, please explain.

[BrianShaw]

Not directed at you, Sal. Just refering to my generic comment that we've already been through this discussion and re-discussing it is fruitless. Or, at least, that's what I meant to imply.

[BrianShaw]

p.s. It's a beutiful day up here in Northern LA... I'll be taking camera out this afternoon (probabl a speed graphic) with hopes of actually using it. Sometimes timesharing photography with baseball practice is more challenging than I can handle. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Not directed at you, Sal. Just refering to my generic comment that we've already been through this discussion and re-discussing it is fruitless. Or, at least, that's what I meant to imply.OK, thanks. I tried hard to step away from the keyboard. In fact, I'm the one who suggested to Witold via PM that he delete the thread. I even made that same suggestion to the moderators. But, when Kirk replied in the thread, it seemed necessary to not let Witold's misinterpretation of my posts go unanswered.

[BrianShaw]

Kirk can always make the discussion disappear... he has that power!

[Kirk Gittings]

Witold, it ended that way because Ken was totally fed up with what had been going on here and the incredible amount of time and energy of his that was being taken up with crap. I know exactly how he feels and IMO all new new and returning members should read that thread and realize that there is a limit to our patience and good temper.

This is not a for profit site that needs warm bodies to impress advertisers. So we can be more selective in terms of who we let post here. Its Saturday. I have some good friends coming over for lunch. I've said my piece. Hasta.

[invisibleflash]

OP, everyone can only offer what they can offer. If the mods are stressed out and low on time...that is what they can offer. Members are free to start up their own forums if they don't like this one. I'm not for or against the mods / forum... just stating fact.

[Michael_4514]

I have a big mouth and I'm very opinionated just about all the time, except when I come to this site. I've been here for 9 years, and have posted less than 200 times. I've written many a response, only to abort it, realizing that an extra opinion on the subject is often just superfluous.

This is a wonderful site, full of wisdom and good people, it is free and it is reliable. I don't always agree with moderation policies, but I don't need to. Plus, I find that I learn a lot more here by reading than by writing. Hopefully, I'll learn enough to help others the way others have helped me.

[IanG]

I've been a vocal criric of bizarre moderation of this website in the last year or two but it does seem to have become more level headed of late, the fact this thread is still here is part of that.

Moderation is a two way processthough, we need to listen to them and even more importanly they need to listren to feedback, and take that into account.

Ian

[Phong]

1. I'd like to thank the moderators for their contribution. It's a thankless job.
2. I don't agree with the moderation philosophy of the site, but I am ok with it.
3. The site seems to prefer more experienced photographers for moderators. I think that's a mistake. I'd much rather have the more experienced members spend their time sharing their experience with the community than policing the site. Besides, moderation does not require photography knowledge or expertise. It requires patience.

And that's my piece.

- Phong

[sanking]

Mod Action: Removed Dan's quote that Sandy summarizes well enough for posterity.

Dan,

You did a good job of putting my thoughts into words.

My other thought would be this. All of us have a finite amount of time in this life. Find a way to make the best of it. Crapping on other people, either the moderators of this forum or others, does nothing to advance your goals. Consider instead focusing on what it is you want out of life/photography, and directing your energies to that end.

As Kirk said, it is Saturday and some of us working folks would like to enjoy the company of our friends/wife/relatives.

Sandy

[Jody_S]

And I was just thinking that this forum has been pretty drama-free for the last few weeks. With discussions about lenses, films, composition, lots of beautiful images posted...

[rdenney]

In truth, Ken's threat of warning-free vacations for those who go over the line hasn't been carried out very much. As always, the moderators consider the person when making a decision. Sometimes, the person just has a bad day. Sometimes, we mods are just having a bad day. In the end, a post is just a post--a thought of the day written down, and a day on the forum is just a day in a life--a day that can be spent profitably doing a thousand other things. If a post is deleted, the poster can consider a more appropriate or acceptable way to try it again.

The vast majority of members here have never received a moderation action.

It's simple, really. If people would not take things personally, or invest the core of their being in every opinion they express, they would take what they perceive as attacks from others in stride and just move on, or learn how to respond in ways that to not escalate the issue. There are those who have demonstrated that they can take some ribbing, and the ribbing they get is fun for them and everyone. Others demonstrate less tolerance for ribbing, and people learn to be more careful with them. Occasionally, someone gets crosswise and the result can be uncivil, and that's when moderators step in.

Ken's point was that people who have seen enough of these actions, and who have participated in enough of these threads to already know where that line is should not need to be warned with something more mild than a vacation for a few days. A warning is a reminder, but many regulars shouldn't need reminding, especially when the subject of moderation was the topic du jour for weeks as it had been when Ken made that point.

When the forum has been just fun to read as it has been for quite a while now, the moderators relax a bit. When a bunch of folks go on a tear, as sometimes happens, then we get stretched to our limits and sometimes beyond them. We're human, too. But the worst that happens for people who are neither spammers nor unredeemable jerks is that one of their posts gets removed or they spend part of a week exploring other aspects of their lives. In my mind, that ranks somowhere below the comfy chair torture on the cruelty list. And, for those who like to dance along the line, an action often determines whether they want to be part of this forum or whether they would rather be an unredeemable jerk. We have thankfully had few of the latter, but all the mods have been the special beneficiary of at least one. After deleting one person's posts for rudeness, I was called names by email that no civil person should ever have to hear. I gave him a vacation as a result, and he called me more names. He also offered one of my possessions on a popular sales site for a ridiculously low price, with much of my personally identiable information (that he had to research to obtain) included, just to make my life inconvenient and to attempt to get to me. And he signed me up, using my personal email, for half a dozen porn sites. That's when we banned him. I must say, that sort of thing only has to happen once or twice before a moderator becomes less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. And when it happens, it provides an apt demonstration of what that person was really about. Most who receive an action, however, realize they went too far and reel themselves back in a bit.

We are all friends here, but that friendship can be surprisingly fragile. Some forums become places where people score points for how much blood they can draw from others. And other forums delete even mild ribbing. We try to prevent the former while allowing the latter, but it's a fine and always shifting line. We do our best.

Rick "who likes reading about lenses, films, and composition, and looking at lots of beautiful images" Denney

[Vaughn]

This forum is what it is because of the moderation, not in spite of it.

And anyone who mentions the comfy chair torture is okay in my books! It was unexpected...

[Robert Tilden]

This forum is what it is because of the moderation, not in spite of it.

And anyone who mentions the comfy chair torture is okay in my books! It was unexpected...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! "Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!"

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I suspect you fail to understand the subtle nuances of language in my post.

Here's what it said to Kevin Kolosky, broken down into individual thoughts:


I respect your right to post your opinion in the thread.
I disagree with and have no respect for the specific opinion you've posted about actions the moderators are taking concerning the thread's subject.


It's very important that I used bold italics for "what" and you quoted me making the larger phrase bold italics. My construction, in a very civil manner that didn't attack Kevin personally, communicated that I have no respect for and disagree with the opinion he presented about the moderators' decision. That's a very different thing than saying I don't respect him or his right to post that opinion.



The reason nobody came to Kevin's defense is because he insistently posted that the forum should change to be what he wants it to be, not what the owner and moderators want it to be. This forum is a private venue, where there is no freedom of speech, whether you, Kevin or anyone else thinks otherwise. If the moderators determine that certain things violate the rules and posting them will lead to being "escorted out the door," they're perfectly correct and within their rights to do that escorting. Kevin's persistent failure to accept the rules is disrespectful behavior. It was his lack of respect for the forum community and the rules that prompted me to keep posting. I stand by everything I wrote in that thread -- if Kevin, you or anyone else feels so strongly that the anarchy of an unmoderated forum is preferable, feel free to go start one of your own.


Boy, how did I miss all of these people talking about me?

I accept the rules. If I did not I would have, I assume, been kicked off the site. Rather, I disagree with the rules, which I do not see as disrespectful.

I notice that a V Bulletin license can be had for under $400.00. Besides the license, what else does one need for a forum like this one. I would imagine a server or two, and some storage space. What else? How much would it cost per month? Perhaps if there were enough members here who would rather participate in a rule free forum, and who would contribute to that goal, we could get one started.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Perhaps if there were enough members here who would rather participate in a rule free forum, and who would contribute to that goal, we could get one started.If there are other members here who would embrace your anarchy forum (can't title it with any specific subject like photography, since there would be no rules), I encourage their contributions to you and migration there ASAP. :D

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I didn't ask for your assessment or encouragement, neither of which is needed. I asked what it cost.

[hoffner]

A good question, Kevin and entirely valid. Hopefully as a member you will not become a victim of intimidation and the thread that of a wrong interpretation.

[Brian Ellis]

Oh please, these moderator complaints are so tiresome. In the last year or two there have been page after page of complaints like this. Let it go. The forum is what it is. It costs nothing to join and nothing to leave. If you like the forum then participate. If you don't then don't. If you have complaints with the moderators take them up with the moderators.

[Preston]

I agree with Brian.

--P

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Oh please, these complaints against people who complain about moderators are getting tireseom, and especially when the person isn't complaining about the moderators.

I am not complaining about the moderators, and I am not complaining about the site. I love this site, and I have admiration for the moderators (their photographic work). They do their job, just like a police officer does her job.

I just think that a "FORUM" is a place where all people should be heard. Moreover, I think that this philosophy is misunderstood.
I am not for "anarchy" as some have accused. Have you gone to a high school debate lately? Both teams argue vigorously against the other. But nobody ever takes an argument and turns it into a personal ad hominem attack. When they are done they shake hands and say congratulations.
I am for a place where everyone can have their opinion heard, and where everyone respects everyone else.

Of course the comeback to that is: "we have tried that but due to some "bad" people it won't work and therefore we have to have rules". And that is where I differ in my opinion. I would much rather see a free flow of ideas than stifle them, even if it means putting up with something that might be distasteful. Just like I would rather see 100 murderers go free than execute 1 innocent man.

Why? Because even objective rules are enforced subjectively.

[Sal Santamaura]

I didn't ask for your assessment or encouragement, neither of which is needed...I didn't see anyone ask for your questions. Nonetheless, they were asked/presented here. My responses assessing your proposed anarchy forum and providing encouragement to establish it will similarly continue to be presented here, whether you think you need them or not.


...I asked what it cost.Perhaps a venue devoted to the establishment and running of Internet forums might be good place to obtain an answer. This forum is, after all, dedicated to large format photography. :D

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

And my response is that even though I don't like what you say (subjective, others might like it), I will say "congratulations", because you got to say what you wanted to say. After all, this part of the forum is the "feedback" forum.

[hoffner]

-
Perhaps a venue devoted to the establishment and running of Internet forums might be good place to obtain an answer. This forum is, after all, dedicated to large format photography. :D

And Kevin's valid question was related to the creation of a large format photography forum. That's why it has its place at this forum too.

Please, stop your belligerent attacks at Kevin now. They disgrace him and this forum too.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Hoffner

Thank you for your support. However, as I have stated, I would much rather have people be belligerent towards me and I be disgraced than have the free exchange of ideas muffled.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am not for "anarchy" as some have accused...Twasn't an accusation, rather an accurate observation. You've proposed "no rules." Without rules, there is anarchy.


...Have you gone to a high school debate lately? Both teams argue vigorously against the other. But nobody ever takes an argument and turns it into a personal ad hominem attack. When they are done they shake hands and say congratulations. I am for a place where everyone can have their opinion heard, and where everyone respects everyone else...High school debate is replete with rules. Here's a quickly found summary:


http://www.ehow.com/list_6303157_rules-classroom-debates.html

Without those rules and enforcement of them, ad hominem attacks would be ubiquitous and respect for others in very short supply.


...I would rather see 100 murderers go free than execute 1 innocent man...Again, you've conflated criminal law and government with members' speech as guests in this private venue. They are totally different and unrelated.

At the risk of crossing into politics, I agree with your position. It is for that reason that I am completely opposed to capital punishment.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Without rules there may be anarchy, but only if the participants want there to be anarchy. It isn't automatic.

I would agree, high school debate do have rules. But my point is that there should not be a need for them.

I have not conflated anything. I was not trying to compare government with a private forum. Rather, I was trying to give an example that might explain what I was trying to express. It had nothing to do with government and private forums. Rather, it had to do with accepting distaste for something in order to gain something better. That is the very point that I am trying to make. I was conveying one thing, and a reader subjectively thought it was someting else. Perhaps other readers thought it was someting altogether different.

[Brian C. Miller]

without rules there may be anarchy, but only if the participants want there to be anarchy.


Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age of ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.
-- "V for Vendetta," "V" speaking.

What we have now is anarchy. There are no leaders here. We post, we discuss. No single person directs the discussions. Thus, anarchy.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Please, stop your belligerent attacks at Kevin now. They disgrace him and this forum too.Mr. Hoffner, I don't know where you are, but it seems you bring a perspective to this discussion that involves very different views about what a privately owned, US-based Internet forum should and should not be able to do. A review of your posts shows only three directly related to photography. The rest push a misinformed "freedom of speech" agenda similar to what the OP tried when starting this thread.

I have made no "belligerent" attacks on anyone, in this thread or others, anywhere on this forum. A more appropriate use of the word would be to describe how the OP and Mr. Kolosky attack the rules and moderators of this forum. Whenever encountering those attacks, I have in the past, am now and will continue to vigorously defend this community, pointing out the attackers' errors, omissions and absurdities along the way, always in a respectful manner that complies with the rules and is not ad hominem. To do otherwise would discrace this forum.

[hoffner]

-
I have made no "belligerent" attacks on anyone, in this thread or others, anywhere on this forum. A more appropriate use of the word would be to describe how the OP and Mr. Kolosky attack the rules and moderators of this forum. Whenever encountering those attacks, I have in the past, am now and will continue to vigorously defend this community, pointing out the attackers' errors, omissions and absurdities along the way, always in a respectful manner that complies with the rules and is not ad hominem. To do otherwise would discrace this forum.

Mr. Sal, your posts are not respectful. If you want to play Don Quixote on this forum, well, go ahead. You're on a good way anyway - vigorously, vehemently and, hopefully -to the greater pleasure of the forum members - with perseverance. Please.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Mr. Hoffner

Please don't let Mr. Sal, or anyone else, bother you. Remember, all they offer, just like you and I, are their own subjective opinions. But that is GOOD. That is what forums are for.

If you stand for the principles I do, and you don't like what he or someone else says, you attack the idea, not the person. And if it gets too agitating, you move on and just don't read what that person says anymore. No need for moderators!

[Kevin Crisp]

I just love it when people get on this free forum, which exists due to the money and effort of others, and start talking about their rights and what they are entitled to do.

[Otto Seaman]

I think most of us could conduct ourselves like adults. We already have a bunch of busybody old ladies.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I don't think anyone has talked about "their rights and what they are entitled to do". But in speaking only for myself I am talking about what I wish my rights were and what I would like to do.

[dwross]

I think most of us could conduct ourselves like adults. We already have a bunch of old ladies.

Please elaborate.

[rdenney]

I think most of us could conduct ourselves like adults..

Yes, most do. Those who don't is the reason there are rules. There are no objective rules; all require subjective judgment. We do our best. There are very few cases--very few--where even the most acerbic have been unable to deliver their message. In some cases, we ask them to rephrase the message to avoid violations of the site owner's (and that of his representatives) guidelines. In some cases, we ban topic areas that have proven to devolve into juvenile ad hominem reliably. There are only two such, and neither are related to large-format photography. In some cases, we prevent them from repeating the same idea ad infinitum, and force the to start afresh in a new thread. That at least gets most beyond their jerking knees.

But the ideas are almost always presented.

Yes, we make subjective choices, and sometimes we make mistakes.

But we have also had all manner of retaliation aimed at us for taking action when it does devolve to personal attacks or threats. So, the statement that adults should not need such rules fails on the empirical evidence. It only takes a few to ruin a forum. Thus, with those few, we adopt a stricter approach.

If we squelched debate, why is this thread still here?

But, equally important, is what purpose is it serving?

Rick "who doesn't think being called a nazi is adult behavior" Denney

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

This is why it is so subjective. If I were a moderator I wouldn't care if someone called me a Nazi or called me up in the middle of the night, or called me names, or whatever.

Kevin "who doesn't believe in treating adults like children" Kolosky

[rdenney]

This is why it is so subjective. If I were a moderator I wouldn't care if someone called me a Nazi or called me up in the middle of the night, or called me names, or whatever.

Kevin "who doesn't believe in treating adults like children" Kolosky

Kevin, no adult should ever do those things, or expect such. The behaviors you describe are not adult behaviors, and people who do them have earned being thought juvenile.

Now, I repeat, what purpose is this serving?

Rick "receiving complaints from other adults about this" Denney

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Done.

[welly]

Bloody hell, is there so much undue moderation going on that this is such an issue? Because if it is, I mustn't be seeing it. The only place on the forum I see arguments and disagreements are in posts such as this. Of course there are differences of opinion in other threads but the way most of you are bleating on, you'd have thought every second post is being deleted or locked. No, the posts that have been locked well deserve to be locked and those are the ones that look and smell very much like this one, which should be locked too. It serves no purpose.

[TXFZ1]

Why lock or delete any threads??? If someone breaks the rules, then ban 'em for a week. If they repeat, then a month, etc. If they log on as another user, then ban the IP address. People should be held responsible for what they post and this includes someone that quotes the offensive text. By locking threads or removing offending text, you are trying to control the behavior. Why do you want to try to control someone? It just doesn't work. We agreed to the rules and we should abide by them by being held to a consistant standard. JMO.


David

[Brian Ellis]

Oh please, these complaints against people who complain about moderators are getting tireseom, and especially when the person isn't complaining about the moderators.

I am not complaining about the moderators . ..

You sure could have fooled me.

Title Of Thread: What's happened with moderators . . .

Opening text: What's happened with moderatorssince my last 2007 presence here? . . . Perhaps that's been the case of recent, but the attitude shown by some (moderatorsnot excluded) during this thread was quite contrary to thread's intent. . . . However, what I question is some responses, including from the moderators themselves . . .

And so on and so forth

Perhaps if you'd been around for the last six years you'd have a greater appreciation for why some of us find this kind of thing tiresome.

[Greg Davis]

Anyone who wants to experience a forum with no rules or moderation can easily go to 4chan (http://www.4chan.org). If you think people will behave and moderate themselves without rules, spend a week there. Come back and tell us your experience.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

You sure could have fooled me.

Title Of Thread: What's happened with moderators . . .

Opening text: What's happened with moderatorssince my last 2007 presence here? . . . Perhaps that's been the case of recent, but the attitude shown by some (moderatorsnot excluded) during this thread was quite contrary to thread's intent. . . . However, what I question is some responses, including from the moderators themselves . . .

And so on and so forth

Perhaps if you'd been around for the last six years you'd have a greater appreciation for why some of us find this kind of thing tiresome.

A common response when someone runs out of legitimate argument about the issue in question is to resort to Argumentum Ad Hominem, or a shifting of argument from the point being discussed to the personality of the opponent, usually in the form of an attack on the opponents reputation or moral character; or refering to low intelligence, inferior social position, lack of education, physical composition, or some activity or lack of activity that bears no relationship on the issue (Your wrong because you suck, you voted for Obama, you got low grades in college, your wife is a whore, your fat and ugly, and you don't know anything anyway because you haven't been around).

I can only say that while I did not post here for a period of time my philosophy would have remained the same.

I believe I intimated that I have great respect for the moderators here. If it has appeared that I attacked their person, then I apologise for not stating my ideas in a more precise manner. I recognize they are just doing their job, and that it is not they who make the rules. I am sure they are fine people, and I know they are very fine photographers. My intent has been to point out that even though rules may be objective they are enforced subjectively because moderators are imperfect due to the fact that they suffer from the same condition we all do (the human condition). I opined that rules should not be needed because people should be able to simply avoid posts they do not like rather than being a crybaby by running to the moderator in the middle of the night.

If a person grows tired of reading these kinds of posts its pretty simple. Don't read them!

And I have been to 4chan. Great site!!!! There are some posts there I don't like. I don't read them.

[goamules]

This thread is now locked.

[Wayne]

I wish.

[Racer X 69]

I think most of us could conduct ourselves like adults. We already have a bunch of busybody old ladies.

I wish this forum had a "Like" button.

So here is my own version.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h194/racerx6948/Forum%20How%20To/thumbs_up.jpg

[Otto Seaman]

I apologize to old ladies, including the busybodies. The pedantic old men are far worse. At least old ladies knit and cook and do a service watching over the neighborhood. But some of the bitter old and soon to be old men here are real killjoys - look at that thread from the newbie asking "which camera to get?" I know those can be repetitive but for goodness sakes, why do you guys have to be so negative, discouraging, sexist (truly), and parse everyone's statements to the ninth degree? At the least, simply ignore the threads you hate so much....

The good thing is that male life expectancies are years younger than the women, and negative curmudgeons are the first to go.

[rdenney]

I apologize to old ladies, including the busybodies. The pedantic old men are far worse. At least old ladies knit and cook and do a service watching over the neighborhood. But some of the bitter old and soon to be old men here are real killjoys - look at that thread from the newbie asking "which camera to get?" I know those can be repetitive but for goodness sakes, why do you guys have to be so negative, discouraging, sexist (truly), and parse everyone's statements to the ninth degree? At the least, simply ignore the threads you hate so much....

The good thing is that male life expectancies are years younger than the women, and negative curmudgeons are the first to go.

On the other hand, Otto, your response in that thread was at least as curmudgeonly as anything you might have been complaining about. Just sayin'.

I'm not disagreeing that some folks here value precision and pedantry above all else, including accuracy and effective communication. But many aspects of large-format photography demand precision and attention to detail, and a commitment to getting all those details right every time. It's no wonder that it attracts people with that approach to life. But part of being adult is realizing such things and putting them in perspective, which seems to me an ability more common in old men.

Rick "noting how common one sees complaints about behaviors that demonstrate those behaviors" Denney

[Otto Seaman]

But Rick, my remarks were artfully phrased!

[sanking]

On the other hand, Otto, your response in that thread was at least as curmudgeonly as anything you might have been complaining about. Just sayin'.

I'm not disagreeing that some folks here value precision and pedantry above all else, including accuracy and effective communication. But many aspects of large-format photography demand precision and attention to detail, and a commitment to getting all those details right every time. It's no wonder that it attracts people with that approach to life. But part of being adult is realizing such things and putting them in perspective, which seems to me an ability more common in old men.

Rick "noting how common one sees complaints about behaviors that demonstrate those behaviors" Denney

And in old women too. I noticed that Helen Thomas died a day or so ago. Some time ago I saw here on C-Span in an interview. She was complaining about the lack of professionalism in journalism today, and commented, "No standards. Everyone with a laptop thinks they're a journalist."

And the lack of professionalism is apparent in many areas. These days on the internet every Tom, Dick and Harry often appears to believe that he/she knows as much as everyone about everything.

Sandy

[Merg Ross]

I noticed that Helen Thomas died a day or so ago. Some time ago I saw here on C-Span in an interview. She was complaining about the lack of professionalism in journalism today, and commented, "No standards. Everyone with a laptop thinks they're a journalist."

Sandy

I think Imogen Cunningham might have agreed with Helen. In her profession, she would likely have substituted a "camera" for the laptop, and "photographer" for journalist.

Indeed, both women were pioneers in their field, with a similar acerbic wit and temperament.

[hoffner]

Kirk,

I've always appreciated how you ran moderation. I did read MOST of the thread, granted not all. However, the way it was ended by Ken is absolutely appalling. Forum's behavioral guidelines are part of taking the opinionated culture of diverse minds into a respectful direction. It CANNOT be done by suggesting that a thread on such topic can no longer be started started under the penalty of being expelled. When such statement comes from a moderator, it makes it that much worse.

It has just been suggested to me, through PM, that I delete this thread because of, well ... the threat that ended it. I've had a few of my own mishaps while posting replies, but I usually had the guts to make it right. However, we all have opinions and when they are just that, we all need be able to see it as such and nothing more. I felt that Kevin had a valid point and came across nobody taking his side (I don't believe I'm the only one in agreement). If anything, he came under attacks, after which he tried to re-state his thoughts in somewhat different ways. But in the end, up until the end, it was about a few taking up a thread that, I also agree, should have been a locked announcement. However, it was likely to start a thread on the same topic anyways.

In the end, I made this thread ONLY because of how it was ended. It had no place to be. As you know more than anyone, moderating a forum, especially a frequented one, takes a lot. But it is not possible to moderate effectively, if a threatening statement is made of the mentioned kind. And THAT is the actual topic I wished to bring about.


Thank you, Witold!

[tgtaylor]

"...what the owner and moderators want it [the forum] to be..."

Sal has raised a damn good question: What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.

So what do the owner and moderators want the forum to be?

Thomas

[welly]

Sal has raised a damn good question: What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.

So what do the owner and moderators want the forum to be?

Thomas

QT Luong no longer shoots large format? Are you sure about that? Rick Denney, a mod, clearly shoots large format. I'm not sure who the other mods are to be honest but you're making quite a claim and I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.

[Ralph Barker]

I think it is fair to say that our objectives, "our" being QT and the mods, for the forum remain the same as they have always been, and as stated in the FAQ/guidelines. We have made minor changes to the rules over the years to deal with new situations, but the underlying philosophy has remained constant. And, as far as I know, all of us still shoot LF, although probably not as much or as often as we'd like.

Another constant on the forum has been the relatively small number of people who either haven't read the FAQ/guidelines, don't agree with them, or simply want to "create waves". In extreme cases, some of those folks have been banned, but we try to use a light touch on the ban button. But, the behavior of those few does cause fluctuations in our frustration level, and, occasionally, a corresponding human response.

[Sal Santamaura]

...The reason nobody came to Kevin's defense is because he insistently posted that the forum should change to be what he wants it to be, not what the owner and moderators want it to be...


Sal has raised a damn good question: What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be?...I raised no such question. Please don't change the meaning of my posts. What the owner and moderators of this forum want it to be is perfectly clear. As Ralph mentioned, everything's spelled out in the FAQ/guidelines.

[sanking]

Sal has raised a damn good question: What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.

So what do the owner and moderators want the forum to be?

Thomas

Why do you raise the issue? What do you want the forum to be, if different from what it is?

Sandy

[BrianShaw]

This thread is now locked.

What a great suggestion!

[tgtaylor]

QT Luong no longer shoots large format? Are you sure about that? Rick Denney, a mod, clearly shoots large format. I'm not sure who the other mods are to be honest but you're making quite a claim and I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.

Actually QT said so himself right here on this forum on a couple of occasions. The first, I believe, was during the thread where Kirk Gitting was claiming that a DSLR could deliver all the movements that a view camera can. (He later toned that down somewhat by saying that there may be some esoteric movement that only a view camera could deliver that he was not aware of.) Not to be outdone Rick Denney then jumped in to say that you could get all view camera movements with a camera phone upon which a member bellied-up to explain that the camera phone could be tilted. LOL!!! Anyway I believe that it was that thread where QT first claimed that LF film no longer had the edge, resolution wise, over the DSLR and that he was shooting DSLR instead of LF. He subsequently reaffirmed that he was no longer shooting LF in another thread. But to QT's credit he has never really bashed LF or film like many others here and now thinking back he based his claim of DLSR's superior resolution on the fact that you could stitch with a DSLR.

As far as Mr Denny, well I personally don't believe that he shoots film much less LF film, and has demonstrated a decided prejudice against those that do. Take, for example, the thread that I started yesterday regarding storage for mounted film transparencies. Mr Denny moved it to the lounge because he said it wasn't LF. Yet running concurrently with mine and for some time now is a thread on stitching a Toronto church with a DSLR in which the author states "I doubt 5% of the folks shooting LF are making prints that need LF." Now since one thread was sent to the lounge while the other remained in place a good case could be made that the wrong thread (mine) was sent to the lounge. Clearly it should have been Mr. Richard's thread because it is truly all about small format digital and how it is superior to LF film. It's true that I mentioned 35mm, 6x45 and 6x7 but I shoot 35, 645, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10 film cameras and my main interest was in 6x7 storage which, I might add, is commonly shot with 6x7 film backs on LF cameras. (I also have a 6x9 back but I am unable to project anything over 6x7 so I seldom use that format except for B&W or color prints.) Moreover, I wasn't extoling the benefits of film vs digital as in the Richards post extols digital over film but was merely looking for a better storage medium for mounted slides than the Office Max/Depot card file boxes I have been using.

But Mr. Richards has a valid point when he asserts that LF is commercially dead and that "If the camera fairy gave me a top end MF digital back and a 6x9 camera, I would dump LF because it would not make sense to use it instead for the images I shoot." And many photographer have, in fact, made that switch with more switching to the small format DSLR (as QT) then to the larger (and more expensive) digital options. And therein lies the dilemma faced by this forum. So, again raising the question which Mr Sal unknowingly asked: "What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be?"

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

Being realistic about the what various capture methods and equipment are capable of and useful for does not make one anti LF or pro digital. It just makes one realistic. Nor does picking and choosing the odd statement or moderation by a moderator even vaguely support your fantasy theory that:


What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be? The owner no longer shoots or believes in large format or film and has stated so in no uncertain terms on this forum and neither do most of the moderators, Ken Lee - being the (sole?) exception.


Speaking for myself when I was a moderator (and now), I shot (and continue to shoot) so much LF that I am years behind in film processing. I also teach film and LF at the univertisty level (as well as digital). You fail to quote me the probably DOZENS AND DOZENS AND DOZENS of times in the last few years that I state, un-categorically, that I prefer shooting film for my personal work.

And......
As far as Mr Denny, well I personally don't believe that he shoots film much less LF film, and has demonstrated a decided prejudice against those that do. Seriously, this and your subsequent sentence is evidence that he doesn't shoot LF or film?


no longer shoots or believes in large format or film Large Format is not a belief system or a religion and does not require defenders of the faith. It is a tool.

Seriously, what do you get from this? What is your agenda with all this exaggeration and distortion?

[Sal Santamaura]

...again raising the question which Mr Sal unknowingly asked: "What do the owner and moderatrors want the forum to be?"...My post raised no such question, either wittingly or unwittingly. Please stop trying to distort it. Again, Tuan's and the moderators desires/intentions for this forum are clearly stated.


...Seriously, what do you get from this? What is your agenda with all this exaggeration and distortion?I suspect it's the same agenda that motivates others pursuing the same line of posting. A desire to re-make this forum to their own preferences, which differ from Tuan's and the moderators', instead of going to the trouble and expense of starting their own forum.

[rdenney]

Ah, now we see what the issue is. I moved the thread on medium-format transparencies to the Lounge because it is not large-format, by the long-stated definition used in this forum. It was not intended as a scold, and shouldn't be taken as such.

The purpose of this forum is to provide a place to discuss large-format photography. It is not about film photography, except that film is the easiest way to shoot large format at the present time. There is already an excellent forum focused solely on film photography in all formats (APUG). There is no need for this forum to compete with it rather than complement it.

It is also not about digital photography, per se. But given that we allow people to post roll-film photographs in the image-sharing forums if they were made using a large-format camera (such as a with a roll-film holder), we also allow digital photographs made with digital capture devices mounted on large-format cameras, even if they are medium-format sized. That's because this forum is officially agnostic in the film vs. digital debate.

If a discussion is about the use of medium-format film in large-format cameras, we will allow it in the regular subforums, consistent with the above regarding images. If it is about medium-format film unrelated to use in a large-format camera, other than as the occasional aside to what is mainly a thread about large format, we'll move it to the Lounge where discussions of smaller formats are always acceptable. Nothing new here--it's the way this forum has been managed at least since I've been a member.

Your thread was moved because we received several reports about it not being large format-related. We don't read all threads, so we miss things if people don't report them. Any thread that seems to violate guidelines was not "allowed" by us if we received no reports--it may just have gone unnoticed. If you see something, report it. Remember that in much of the history of this forum, there was no Lounge and your thread would simply have been deleted. I'm glad we no longer have to resort to that action to maintain the focus on large format.

I don't feel as though I should have to defend my own photography or format choices, because the photography I do has nothing to do with the moderation decisions I make. But I don't want others to think as you suggest simply because I don't respond. I made the argument that much of what can be done with large format, in terms of image management, can be done with small format, if the small format otherwise delivers sufficient image quality for the task at hand. In the commercial context, the task at hand comes with explicit requirements, and a pro--especially a busy pro--will choose the most efficient path to fulfilling those requirements. It's just a lot easier and a lot cheaper for low-production photographers trying to maximize image quality to use large format cameras when we want those image-management capabilities. And I like the results I get better, for the type of work I do and the sort of setup my life can tolerate at present. I also like that way of working, and expressing skills I've gained since my first use of a large-format camera as an architecture student in the 70's. I frequently make photos for web display with my iPhone, entirely for documentary purposes. I use a Canon 5D for event photography unless the victi...client wants film. In that case, I have a very nice Pentax 645 kit, but it's been several years since anyone asked for it. When I do my own photography for the sake of doing photography, I use either large-format (sometimes with a roll-film holder) or 6x7 these days. Like Ansel Adams, I use the biggest camera I can carry. My digital camera is now six or seven years old yet I have completely replaced much of my LF kit since I bought that Canon. I travel about 40 weeks out of the year on very busy work trips, and rarely have time for much photography in any format. But I signed up for two of the Wanderlust cameras in hopes of doing more when traveling. I'm taking some time off next month for the sole purpose of putting a portfolio together to give as a gift, and it will be about 60% large format. Kirk does more in a week than I do in a year, and I wish I did more.

Rick "otherwise, what Ralph said" Denney

[Tim Meisburger]

Its like a car crash, I cannot help but look!

I am so happy with the LFPF. It does everything I want in a large format forum, and is free. Keep up the good work guys, it is truly appreciated by the many.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Its like a car crash, I cannot help but look!

I am so happy with the LFPF. It does everything I want in a large format forum, and is free. Keep up the good work guys, it is truly appreciated by the many.

100% agreed.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Leigh]

Apparently several people "can't help but look".

This thread has had almost 2 million views in six months. Apparently somebody is paying attention.

- Leigh

[mdm]

Its where people who do or are interested in LF share and discuss. Who cares about the politics.

[hoffner]

Apparently several people "can't help but look".

This thread has had almost 2 million views in six months. Apparently somebody is paying attention.

- Leigh

You're right, Leigh. Over 4 million views in just 14 months.

[Vaughn]

You're right, Leigh. Over 4 million views in just 14 months.

Just shows we care about 'our' LF forum.

[BrianShaw]

There must be a time warp in Australia... this thread was finished many months ago. :o

[Kirk Gittings]

Just shows we care about 'our' LF forum.

People just gawkin at the train wreck........

[Bill Suderman]

I once was a news photographer using a 4x5 Crown Graphic, so I have to stop, look and shoot a few, especially a train wreck! Thanks for your time in the barrel, Kirk.

b

[ROL]

Chooo–ooooo Choooooooooooo!!!

[Racer X 69]

I'm not sure who the other mods are to be honest . . . . .

To view list of the current moderation and admin staff go here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showgroups.php

[Racer X 69]

You sure could have fooled me.

Title Of Thread: What's happened with moderators . . .

Opening text: What's happened with moderatorssince my last 2007 presence here? . . . Perhaps that's been the case of recent, but the attitude shown by some (moderatorsnot excluded) during this thread was quite contrary to thread's intent. . . . However, what I question is some responses, including from the moderators themselves . . .

And so on and so forth

Perhaps if you'd been around for the last six years you'd have a greater appreciation for why some of us find this kind of thing tiresome.

But.

But.

But.

Kevin didn't start this discussion thread.

[DennisD]

You're right, Leigh. Over 4 million views in just 14 months.

Just put thus in perspective - this thread with an amazing 4,000,000 views, while the "Large Format Landscape" thread boasts 1,400,000 views by comparison. You'd have to combine quite a few other threads to equal 4 million.

Is this really where the interest lies ? Like a spectator sport ?

I'd much prefer spending time on photography !

[Vaughn]

...Is this really where the interest lies ? ...

I would say it is a healthy concern about the smooth operation of our LF forum, of which our moderators are the backbone.

[Jody_S]

Just put thus in perspective - this thread with an amazing 4,000,000 views, while the "Large Format Landscape" thread boasts 1,400,000 views by comparison. You'd have to combine quite a few other threads to equal 4 million.

Is this really where the interest lies ? Like a spectator sport ?

I'd much prefer spending time on photography !

There is no way the 4,000,000 views come from members here. I suspect the phrase is being picked up by the search engines and people click here by mistake when wondering what's wrong with the mods on their own sh*tty forum. There aren't enough members here to drive that sort of traffic, and the mods aren't causing any level of disaffection that might justify obsessing over a silly thread.

[Vaughn]

Could be right -- added another quarter million.

[hoffner]

I suspect the phrase is being picked up by the search engines and people click here by mistake when wondering what's wrong with the mods on their own sh*tty forum.


Sure. People wondering what's wrong with moderators on their own forum somehow forget the access to their forum, need to google out a phrase they remember about moderating their own forum and then obey Google to come to a different forum to read this thread.
Sounds logical. It is surely that and nothing else.

[David R Munson]

There is no way the 4,000,000 views come from members here.

I dunno, I do check this thread at least 384 times a day...

And I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread - but I did want to voice my support of the moderators here. They have a difficult job and this forum remains the best photo forum in which I have ever participated. Without good mods, it would have gone downhill long, long ago.

[Peter De Smidt]

And I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread - but I did want to voice my support of the moderators here. They have a difficult job and this forum remains the best photo forum in which I have ever participated. Without good mods, it would have gone downhill long, long ago.

David is right on the money.

[Ralph Barker]

Thanks, guys.

[rdenney]

Thanks, guys.

Rick "+1" Denney

[Tin Can]

Best forum and best moderators.

I have been admonished a few times, but learned from those experiences and still love it here.

I will add that is this the 3rd forum of any kind I have used and getting used to a forum takes time. I still make mistakes, mostly from excitement over discussions.

Old dogs are hard to train.

Thank you mods!

[hoffner]

Best forum and best moderators.

I have been admonished a few times, but learned from those experiences and still love it here.

I will add that is this the 3rd forum of any kind I have used and getting used to a forum takes time. I still make mistakes, mostly from excitement over discussions.

Old dogs are hard to train.

Thank you mods!

Randy,
as much as I like you (knowing you have certain wisdom given by age and suffering) - were I one of the moderators (especially the one than "admonished" you) I would be very sad from your post. Nobody on this forum should feel like a dog in need of training (or trained by a moderator like a one). With your comment you couldn't give a better illustration of the sad state of the forum and it's cause.

[rdenney]

Randy,
as much as I like you (knowing you have certain wisdom given by age and suffering) - were I one of the moderators (especially the one than "admonished" you) I would be very sad from your post. Nobody on this forum should feel like a dog in need of training (or trained by a moderator like a one) on this forum. With your comment you couldn't give a better illustration of the sad state of the forum and it's cause.

Randy is not sad; don't make him so. He's among the most energetic and interesting people here, and his humility is usually unwarranted. He is not a dog that needs training, no matter what his metaphors. He has received no training from us and the only admonishment we've given to Randy that I can recall is to watch his penchant for responding to PM notification emails with the reply-to button, which just goes to the moderators and not the person to whom he is talking. And like most people who have had a post or two deleted, he knew he'd gone over the line.

We do not take action on most complaints, preferring to let things be. And we make judgements as best we can, in good faith, and always with the best interests of the forum in mind. A forum with no moderation too frequently descends into chaos and every topic ends up being a destructive battle, usually among the same handful of people. Eventually, that handful is all that is left. A forum with too much moderation annoys people and they then leave. We try to find the useful balance between these extremes. Sometimes we miss, and we need the same space to be human as anybody else.

Rick "noting the number of times having responded to Hoffner's (usually valid) post reports" Denney

[hoffner]

Randy is not sad; don't make him so.
Rick "noting the number of times having responded to Hoffner's (usually valid) post reports" Denney

Who said Randy is sad? Who makes him so? What Randy said is sad, you cannot take that away by any word twisting. It makes me sick to see a member of the forum, one like Randy, to thank moderators for admonishing him, the "old hard to train dog". Excited from discussions - that was his "fault" as he himself sees it, not being admonished for responding to PM notification emails with the reply -to button.

[Tin Can]

I have as big an ego as any here, and try every day to make our world a better place.

I often fail.

If I were King...

Life, would be Hell.

[rdenney]

Who said Randy is sad? Who makes him so? What Randy said is sad, you cannot take that away by any word twisting. It makes me sick to see a member of the forum, one like Randy, to thank moderators for admonishing him, the "old hard to train dog". Excited from discussions - that was his "fault" as he himself sees it, not being admonished for responding to PM notification emails with the reply -to button.

Edit: Comment removed.

Rick "okay, it was you who said he should be sad, and how does that change the point I'm making?" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

I had the pleasure of meeting Randy and having a beer. If I remember right I was a moderator to who had to deal with some Randy posts a couple of times. I think we were both surprised by what nice guys we both were. There is something about the distance of the web that exaggerates perceived behavior and perceived emotion that evaporates when you meet someone face to face.

I think Rick had a similar experience when we met face to face.

Don't take the crap that happens online too seriously.

[Jmarmck]

I had the pleasure of meeting Randy and having a beer. If I remember right I was a moderator to who had to deal with some Randy posts a couple of times. I think we were both surprised by what nice guys we both were. There is something about the distance of the web that exaggerates perceived behavior and perceived emotion that evaporates when you meet someone face to face.

I think Rick had a similar experience when we met face to face.

Don't take the crap that happens online too seriously.

That is for sure. I have to say that this site is far more civilized than some music sites I have frequented.
If I left every time someone deleted one of my posts or threads I would not be on line, no big deal.
This site is one of the least moderated I have been on. The mods seem to be even handed unlike some who have used the moderation as a means to an end.

[rdenney]

I had the pleasure of meeting Randy and having a beer. If I remember right I was a moderator to who had to deal with some Randy posts a couple of times. I think we were both surprised by what nice guys we both were. There is something about the distance of the web that exaggerates perceived behavior and perceived emotion that evaporates when you meet someone face to face.

I think Rick had a similar experience when we met face to face.

Don't take the crap that happens online too seriously.

It was that promotional picture you were using at the time. It scared me to death.

Rick "heh" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

:) you weren't the only one!

[bob carnie]

I actually met Monty M once , he seems to be a nice guy on line, In person to my horror he was so ugly I had to take him to a private room just to talk.
Its funny how these forums are.



It was that promotional picture you were using at the time. It scared me to death.

Rick "heh" Denney

[hoffner]

Edit: Comment removed.

Rick "okay, it was you who said he should be sad, and how does that change the point I'm making?" Denney

Rick, I did not say anywhere he (Randy) should be sad - I said, the moderator, reading his post, who made Randy speak like a dog in need of training, should be sad. Enough about it.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Don't take the crap that happens online too seriously.


That is for sure...I have a different perspective. Such an approach is what leads to the kind of on-line behavior requiring moderation, reinforces the idea that "it's only the Internet" and makes people feel free to post whatever crap they want. Fortunately, Large Format Forum guidelines are taken seriously by the moderators. Their feedback and training are necessary to ensure those who violate receive correction and/or sanctions, up to and including banning.

This forum isn't in a sad state. It has become a better place because of increased moderation. In the past, when it hewed closer to the anarchic model desired by hoffner, it did too frequently descend into chaos. Thankfully, those days are over.

[hoffner]

I have as big an ego as any here, and try every day to make our world a better place.

I often fail.

If I were King...

Life, would be Hell.

You have all the right to have your ego, as any moderator . They too fail (but don't like it when you tell them that).

[Jmarmck]

I'll stick to my guns. I certainly can find better things to get unhinged about.
It is also my belief that my attitude toward such in no way changes how another will act.

[hoffner]

I had the pleasure of meeting Randy and having a beer. If I remember right I was a moderator to who had to deal with some Randy posts a couple of times. I think we were both surprised by what nice guys we both were. There is something about the distance of the web that exaggerates perceived behavior and perceived emotion that evaporates when you meet someone face to face.

I think Rick had a similar experience when we met face to face.

Don't take the crap that happens online too seriously.

Well that's funny. Randy's post where he rejoices over the admonishment he received from moderators (rightly so, wasn't he sometimes excited, the old dog in need of training?) was sitting there for more than a year with no reaction whatsoever from any moderator who now are so quick to show how they like the very same admonished old dog, Randy. Pity, they did not say so when Randy posted his self humiliating post.
The crap that happens here I don't take seriously by any means - the human person behind the post, I do. That's why I reacted to Randy's post in the first place. I know, he's cool enough to take the crap, knowing it's not the end of the world. Yet, no one should feel the way he did, as a member of this forum. Enough said.

[Sal Santamaura]

I'll stick to my guns. I certainly can find better things to get unhinged about...There's a difference between taking something seriously and getting unhinged.


...It is also my belief that my attitude toward such in no way changes how another will act.It's much more a matter of moderators' attitudes than yours or mine. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

Well that's funny. Randy's post where he rejoices over the admonishment he received from moderators (rightly so, wasn't he sometimes excited, the old dog in need of training?) was sitting there for more than a year with no reaction whatsoever from any moderator who now are so quick to show how they like the very same admonished old dog, Randy. Pity, they did not say so when Randy posted his self humiliating post.

The post was June 2 2014, two months ago and 1) I haven't been a moderator for a long time 2) since I am not a moderator I really don't give a crap about people moaning about the moderation so I don't normally look at threads like this 3) the moderators don't read every post made on this forum nor should they and neither do I 4) I was in Chicago at that time and may have had a beer with him on that day. He was anything but humiliated in my presence.

Only you seem to read humiliation into his post. So this whole thing seems to be more about you than him or the moderation. you are confusing humility with humiliation. You could learn from him.

Let me also say that one has to be an idiot to take on moderation. There is 0 upside and many downsides. You guys are saints. I was not. It got to me and I had to bow out.

[Sal Santamaura]

The post was June 2 2014 two months ago and 1) I haven't been a moderator for a long time 2) since I am not a moderator I really don't give a crap about people moaning about the moderation so I don't normally look at threads like this 3) the moderators don't read every post made on this forum nor should they and neither do I.Two additional points:


Your moderation efforts greatly contributed to the improved climate around here; I wasn't implying that things got better after you left that role.
I think that taking words posted on-line seriously is no less important than grasping the significance of stolen images. Dismissing one hurts arguments against the other. Publication medium ought be irrelevant when evaluating behavior. Acting like an a-hole or being a thief are what they are, regardless of venue. We shouldn't be cavalier about either in "real life" or on the Internet.

[Kirk Gittings]

Two additional points:


Your moderation efforts greatly contributed to the improved climate around here; I wasn't implying that things got better after you left that role.
I think that taking words posted on-line seriously is no less important than grasping the significance of stolen images. Dismissing one hurts arguments against the other. Publication medium ought be irrelevant when evaluating behavior. Acting like an a-hole or being a thief are what they are, regardless of venue. We shouldn't be cavalier about either in "real life" or on the Internet.


No I was referring to the anonymous person who calls themselves Hoffner here. Thanks. Based on overwhelming experience I cannot take what is said online seriously. I try and take myself seriously but that is all I am responsible for or capable of.

[rdenney]

Rick, I did not say anywhere he (Randy) should be sad - I said, the moderator, reading his post, who made Randy speak like a dog in need of training, should be sad. Enough about it.

Too many commas--I got lost.

Rick "not, however, sad" Denney

[Heroique]

There is something about the distance of the web that exaggerates perceived behavior and perceived emotion that evaporates when you meet someone face to face.

I think Rick, Randy and hoffner should meet face-to-face for 2-3 pitchers of beer.

Rick and Randy would see that hoffner is, astonishingly, self-critical. Rick and hoffner would see that Randy is most like a clever cat of all the animals. Randy and hoffner would see that Rick would not try to moderate the choice of beer. ;^)

I bet the three would leave the tavern arm-in-arm, singing pop songs from the 1970's.

[hoffner]

In reaction to the post n.110:
1 -right that, a good correction
2,4 - my reaction has nothing to do with it
3 - you surely did as 2 other moderators. The OP was about moderating, enough to attract the attention of moderators (as I know) except the one, mentioned in the OP - ducking conveniently (or so he thinks.)

Only me seem to read humiliation to Randy's post? So much for our human sensitivity? Oh boy!
And stop the self flagellation - my reaction was not a personal attack on you.

[hoffner]

No I was referring to the anonymous person who calls themselves Hoffner here. .

How much is my name more anonymous than that of the others, wise man? Why that hostile tone? Try to cool down.

[Sal Santamaura]

In reaction to the post n.110:...Not even the spine to quote it.


The post was June 2 2014, two months ago and 1) I haven't been a moderator for a long time...


...1 -right that, a good correction...The end of Kirk's moderating tenure wasn't a "correction" of anything. From what I can gather, he'd had all he could take. It must be very trying dealing with obnoxious a-holes. I deeply appreciate the time he spent doing so as well as the efforts of our current moderators, who put up with that same thing.

[Sal Santamaura]

How much is my name more anonymous than that of the others...It's more anonymous than many, who use their real names. Unfortunately, real names aren't required. I maintain hope that will change in the future.


...Why that hostile tone? Try to cool down.Hostile taunts can incite strong reactions.

[Kirk Gittings]

In reaction to the post n.110:
1 -right that, a good correction
2,4 - my reaction has nothing to do with it
3 - you surely did as 2 other moderators. The OP was about moderating, enough to attract the attention of moderators (as I know) except the one, mentioned in the OP - ducking conveniently (or so he thinks.)

Only me seem to read humiliation to Randy's post? So much for our human sensitivity? Oh boy!
And stop the self flagellation - my reaction was not a personal attack on you.

You are utterly clueless. Goodbye.

[Tin Can]

When Kirk and I met for a beer and Fish and Chips, we had a long talk and parted as if we were long lost family.

Not many people I instantly bond with, but it does happen once a decade.

TIN CAN COLLEGE, School of Hard Knocks. Most of us are graduates. And that is my IP, hands off.

[hoffner]

You are utterly clueless. Goodbye.

So are you.

[Tin Can]

+1


It's more anonymous than many, who use their real names. Unfortunately, real names aren't required. I maintain hope that will change in the future.

[Kirk Gittings]

When Kirk and I met for a beer and Fish and Chips, we had a long talk and parted as if we were long lost family.

Not many people I instantly bond with, but it does happen once a decade.

TIN CAN COLLEGE, School of Hard Knocks. Most of us are graduates. And that is my IP, hands off.

Thanks Randy. That was a good time. It was good getting to know you.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks guys. Interesting intercourse. I've only met one person from this forum and found that experience VERY different from his on-line persona. I'm looking forward to meeting one more but don't dare ask... he can be such a grumpy old man that I think he may scare me if he says OK.

[jb7]

Thanks guys. Interesting intercourse. I've only met one person from this forum and found that experience VERY different from his on-line persona. I'm looking forward to meeting one more but don't dare ask... he can be such a grumpy old man that I think he may scare me if he says OK.

You're not giving us much of a clue...

[Sal Santamaura]

You're not giving us much of a clue...Not even an emoticon! :D

[Ralph Barker]

Thanks guys. Interesting intercourse. I've only met one person from this forum and found that experience VERY different from his on-line persona. I'm looking forward to meeting one more but don't dare ask... he can be such a grumpy old man that I think he may scare me if he says OK.

Go ahead and ask me, Brian. I can't bite off your head through the Internet. ;-)

[Kirk Gittings]

Hmmmmm grumpy old man.....very unusual here.

[rdenney]

Hmmmmm grumpy old man.....very unusual here.

Who you calling old?

Rick "grrrr" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Not even an emoticon! :D

This one's for you Sal. :o

[Sal Santamaura]

This one's for you Sal. :oOK, but should I interpret it to mean you're embarrassed for yourself or for me? :)

[StoneNYC]

Thanks guys. Interesting intercourse. I've only met one person from this forum and found that experience VERY different from his on-line persona. I'm looking forward to meeting one more but don't dare ask... he can be such a grumpy old man that I think he may scare me if he says OK.

I'm not old, we should meet :)

[Monty McCutchen]

I actually met Monty M once , he seems to be a nice guy on line, In person to my horror he was so ugly I had to take him to a private room just to talk.
Its funny how these forums are.

I only appeared hideous because you didn't have a step ladder to get up to eye level and kept talking to my chest. You really should carry one around so such mistakes occur less often.

Monty

[sanking]

I only appeared hideous because you didn't have a step ladder to get up to eye level and kept talking to my chest. You really should carry one around so such mistakes occur less often.

Monty

Monty,

Your humor may have came up a bit short for Bob. And could you clarify that last sentence?

Sandy

[Jmarmck]

....or it could have gone over his head..................................I'll get my coat.

[bob carnie]

Oh here we go , not only incredibly ugly, you are also a teller of big tales.... you should be ashamed of yourself.... And those things you were saying about Sandy well I can't even repeat them..

Yes I know he is an obnoxious old Southern Gentleman, but geez Monty look in a mirror once in awhile..

I think you owe Sandy an apology.



I only appeared hideous because you didn't have a step ladder to get up to eye level and kept talking to my chest. You really should carry one around so such mistakes occur less often.

Monty

[hoffner]

I actually met Monty M once , he seems to be a nice guy on line, In person to my horror he was so ugly I had to take him to a private room just to talk.



Oh here we go , not only incredibly ugly, you are also a teller of big tales....

I think you owe Sandy an apology.

Huh? Since when do Forum's rules allow us to call another member "ugly" or even "incredibly ugly" right under the nose of so many moderators? Please let us know, I have something to say about Kirk Gittings too.

[Ralph Barker]

Huh? Since when do Forum's rules allow us to call another member "ugly" or even "incredibly ugly" right under the nose of so many moderators? Please let us know, I have something to say about Kirk Gittings too.

This is obviously a humorous exchange between friends, since Monty isn't complaining.

[hoffner]

Obviously humorous.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for clarifying. I have been laughing but not LOL... just in case that would be seen as impolite. Very humorous indeed!

[Michael Mutmansky]

This is obviously a humorous exchange between friends, since Monty isn't complaining.

Actually, I'm not sure that Monty picked up on it. We all know he's a bit slow on the whistle.

[bob carnie]

Ditto

actually, i'm not sure that monty picked up on it. We all know he's a bit slow on the whistle.

[Ron McElroy]

...... We all know he's a bit slow on the whistle.

I don't know about that. His whistle seems darn quick when working in Memphis :rolleyes:

[Greg Miller]

Can I be ugly? I want to be ugly. Ugly is the new black.

[BrianShaw]

I'm black and beautiful.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/heavenk.jpg

I suspect this thread has fulfilled its earthly purpose. Now it will go to an even better place.

This thread is now closed.

Rest in Peace, "What's happened with moderators".