Why the Censorship of questions???

[Dan Smith]

Once again a spirited interchange/argument of Simmons/Jorge/et.al is censored & removed from this page.

WHY?

Let them duke it out in print. Let everyone see the arguments & pissing contest that never ends. No one is hurt & the invective & insanity is entertaining.

A free interchange of ideas doesn't hurt anyone and at times this arguing comes up with insights into those involved we can get nowhere else.

Quit censoring & removing these posts & answers. At times they are the most entertaining thing on the page.

We know the people involved are not perfect so keep it on display.

[Alec Jones]

You get free speech on the sidewalk, Mike. There's no democracy here. If you don't like it, start your own forum.

[Alec Jones]

Sorry to all the Mikes out there. Meant to say Dan. Messed up my perfect week!

[neil poulsen]

I can see Dan's point of view. I'm one who least likes removing threads, etc. But, this forum has guidelines, and they need to be observed. When threads continue against these guidelines, their results can be truly damaging to the people involved. I don't want to see this happen.

The previous thread on the pyro topic was deleted not because of it's content, but because it kept going on and on. At that time, it hadn't occurred to me to freeze the thread. I would also comment that I had multiple messages from contributors urging me to delete the thread.

The purpose of this forum is to have a respectful exchange of ideas relating to large format photography. It's not to have a forum in which to view human psychology in action.

I've articulated one point of view. I would be interested to see others' comments on this topic.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have no problem with Neil or Tuan freezing or deleting the thread. After all is not like we are discussing the cure for Cancer. I stayed up till 4 AM printing for my show, seems Simmons stayed up just to reply to me, boggles the mind! I just do it to screw with him and ruin his day, but I dont find anything particularly important about any of this....:-)



For today, let me go and sign in his forum and ruin one more day for him....lol....

[D. Kevin Gibson]

The last post emphasises the juvenile and pointless nature of the exchange. I see absolutely no problem with moderating the heck out of such a thread.

[Frank Petronio]

I come here for polite and civilized conversation after reading all the stupid rants on my forum, which I do not moderate very often. I'm glad they run a tight ship here, even if I rock it once in awhile.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Unfortunately this forum is getting an insipid stream of threads lately. There is nothing better than some high-spirited mud-slinging once in a while that boils yer blood up.

[ronald lamarsh]

Thanks to the censors I salute you in your effort to keep the forum about folks helping one another, I get really tired of it being filled with discussion that doesn't matter. For those transfixed to these arguments for their entertainment value I suggest you try the "Three Stooges Film Festival"

[Jay DeFehr]

I am inherently anti-cencorship, but agree with Jorge, that there is nothing sacred, or even important in these threads. That said, it is very easy to skip threads that one is not interested in, and nothing compells one to read them other than curiosity. I appreciate the moderators, but I don't need them to protect me from myself.

[sanking]

I agree who with those who have weighed in against censorship. In my opinion people should be allowed continue to express themselves for a reasonable period of time, assuming that the thread has not degenerated into vulgarity and abject name calling, which I suspect might me the puddings that Annie did not want to see. Truncating discussion merely ensures that the issues are not resolved and will surface again in another form somewhere down the road. I am not saying that moderators should not put a stop to some threads but in my opinion there was insufficient justification for doing do in this case given the relatively short time it had been running.

And if someone does not want to read exchanges of this type they can exercise the freedom to not click on the thread. I have observed that threads do not open by magic in my browser. Rather, it takes a conscious decision on my part to navigate to the topic and click on the thread to read the contents.

As for the idea that there is nothing sacred or of particular importance in the thread, I agree completely. But is there anything particularly important in any of our discussions on issues that are essentially highly eclectic in nature? People who feel the need to do something really important should get involved with Habitat for Humanity, a local hopsice, or try reading Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Nietzsche or any one of the other masterpieces of Eastern and Western intellectual thought. Or just pack up your gear and go out and take a new look at the world.

[David A. Goldfarb]

When the government does it, it's censorship, and this I oppose.

When the moderator or owner of a private forum does it, it's editing, and when it's done well, as I think it was in this case, I support it.

[tim atherton]

"And if someone does not want to read exchanges of this type they can exercise the freedom to not click on the thread. I have observed that threads do not open by magic in my browser. Rather, it takes a conscious decision on my part to navigate to the topic and click on the thread to read the contents."

Does if you only read it on email. Sure there's the delete key, but you have to see if it's garbage first before you delete it

[evan clarke]

I am not an insider or an expert. I come here to learn things and once you need to sort through too much crap the forum loses it's purpose. Might as well allow 8 of 10 porn postings like they are getting on the LF newsgroup..Evan

[Jay DeFehr]

Do you have a link?

[Paul Kierstead]

And if someone does not want to read exchanges of this type they can exercise the freedom to not click on the thread. I have observed that threads do not open by magic in my browser. Rather, it takes a conscious decision on my part to navigate to the topic and click on the thread to read the contents.

Well then, you won't mind if we fill the forum with spam, right? You can just skip over it. Or maybe some hate-filled messages railing at everyone, a little Nazi in your life? How about some porn? We can all just skip it after all. I see this kind of argument often; "just don't read it". It is *our* community and I -- for one -- don't want to see it ruined by a bunch of pointless, largely personal, bickering. If some people cannot manage to be civil, then let them go elsewhere.

In fact, if someone does not want to read exchanges of this type, they can go to another forum. Or not read at all in fact. Then, eventually, we can be left with nothing but a little warzone between a few people who are determined to win at all costs. Then someone will have to start another forum, and get people to it, and start all over again.

If I wanted to see such crap all the time, I would just go to Usenet.

[Paul Kierstead]

Ok, I have a solution.

Just put [Mean spirited personal attacks] in the subjects of such threads, then we will all know what to avoid.

[sanking]

"Well then, you won't mind if we fill the forum with spam, right? You can just skip over it. Or maybe some hate-filled messages railing at everyone, a little Nazi in your life? How about some porn? We can all just skip it after all. I see this kind of argument often; "just don't read it". It is *our* community and I -- for one -- don't want to see it ruined by a bunch of pointless, largely personal, bickering. If some people cannot manage to be civil, then let them go elsewhere. "

This comment seriously misrepresents of what I wrote: Perhaps you should have read the first part of my message, where I made it perfectly clear that there is a time when moderation is appropriate. Further, one begins with the basic assumption that any topics posted here will be relative to the large format photography. If not the moderator certainly has the right to eliminate them immediately. The suggestion that what I wrote condones hate railings or porn or any off-topic message is in itself a good example of lack of civility because a hallmark of civilized behaviour is an effort to understand what others are saying.

[QT Luong]

We have to be grateful to Neil for the diligence he has shown in that matter. Besides monitoring and
editing the thread, he personally sent more than one email to each participant of the controversy to
warn them. This is some work, and not the most pleasant type. I am sure it would have been much
easier not to do anything.

I totally
agree that a general level of civility has to be maintained in the forum. However I see the point of having
the exceptional odd outburst as entertaining (I must admit I personally find them fun to read)
and probably not that detrimental if it is exceptional.
That what I implied in my first posting in that thread, and it is in this spirit that I added "+ More PMK Kerfuffle"to the title. Now how do we make sure that those outbursts stay exceptional rather than
becoming an acceptable standard of discourse ?

[Paul Kierstead]

Good move, accuse me of being uncivil and not reading what you wrote nor trying to understand. Is that really called for? Couldn't you just disagree without accusing me of being uncivil?

No, I am not misrepresenting what your wrote. I never said "Sandy King condones porn on the forum". I was pointing out that the tired old argument of "If you don't like it, don't read it" was not really valid.

I don't know if it is because you are involved (at least in some manner), but if you think that the thread in question is even remotely civil, you have a vastly different standard then I do. Perhaps this is the case.

You write: "Truncating discussion merely ensures that the issues are not resolved and will surface again in another form somewhere down the road. "

I would suggest that the forum is not the place for the issue to be resolved. If the issue was the merits of testing methodology, or developers, etc. sure but it isn't. It is about who wrote what and who is competent and who has what negatives, etc. Really, go read it. It is a personal war. It involves very strong personalities and will never be resolved.

[Paul Kierstead]

Oops, QT snuck in there so my reply looks a little odd...look up one more to make sense.

[Jean-Louis Llech]

I don't like censorship.
When Steve Simmons posts a thread to say that the View Camera forum is opened, for me that's not an ad, (or, as it was written, a spam), that's just an information.
But it is rather sad to see that it looks like if some people were permanently in ambush to attack the least word, the least sentence (and even the least typing error) he writes.

I don't like censorship, but nevertheless, when I read some of the threads which have been deleted in the past months, I don't read technical posts, with positive or negtive arguments.
I only see a kind of hate, which, in my opinion, is unbearable here.

How do you consider such answers : "I just do it to screw with him and ruin his day"?

"People should be allowed continue to express themselves for a reasonable period of time, assuming that the thread has not degenerated into vulgarity and abject name calling"
Who will decide what is a reasonable period, or when these limits of vulgarity and insults will be reached ?

I come here to read some valuable informations about large format photography. That's all. This forum is not a psychoanalytical cure where neurotics can "empty their bag" of resentment, rancour or anger.

I am sad to agree with what Neil Poulsen wrote. It's better to delete such threads.

[Bobby Black]

-- Now how do we make sure that those outbursts stay exceptional rather than becoming an acceptable standard of discourse ?

You know, in the grand scheme of things, the large format community is a relatively small one and I, for one, am glad that the contributors to this forum choose to participate in sharing their knowledge and thoughts. As for QT's comment, how about everyone just communicating as though they were in a face-to-face conversation? God knows e-mail isn't the best medium for conveying nuance or tone to what we may be trying to say. I may be in a spirited discourse -- or even an arguement -- with friends at the pub over a beer or three, but at least I know that its among a group of people I know can agree to disagree and it's just talk.

This forum is our international hub for informative conversation when we can't get together in person. Maybe if everyone wrote as though we we're all speaking in the same room it would keep everything friendly and, as QT says, "exceptional."

[sanking]

Paul,

I wrote:

"I am not saying that moderators should not put a stop to some threads but in my opinion there was insufficient justification for doing do in this case given the relatively short time it had been running."

And then you wrote:

"Well then, you won't mind if we fill the forum with spam, right? You can just skip over it. Or maybe some hate-filled messages railing at everyone, a little Nazi in your life? How about some porn? . . . "

In my opinion this is a ridiculous and illogical distortion/misrepresentation of what I wrote. It is in fact an example of lack of civility because you suggest that I would tolerate behavior (you "won't mind if we fill the forum with spam, right"?, How about a little porn . . ") which is neither explicitly or implicitly condoned in my message. And as I stated before, I made it explicitly clear that there is a place for moderation.

However, since you are on record as not wanting the forum to be "ruined by a bunch of pointless, largely personal, bickering" let me suggest that you lead by example.

[Paul Kierstead]

All right, Sandy, I will. Being relatively new to the field, I never had much to contribute anyway, so bowing out will cause no harm to anyone.

[sanking]

Paul,

Well, I think you contributed quite a bit with that statement.

I am going to follow your good example and bow out of this as well. And mark down our exchange as a simple misunderstanding of principles.

[Bruce Watson]

The difference between civilization and anarchy is that civilization has rules.

Rules aren't really rules unless they are enforced. Thus, in order to keep this forum civilized, the moderators must periodically enforce the rules.

Not only do I not have a problem with this, I applaud the efforts of the moderators to maintain civility on this forum, and thank them for their hard work.

[Nick Morris]

To quote the bard "You guys have way too much time on your hands". Go make a really good photograph, all ready.

[Blake]

hmm,

i've heard it said that arguing in a webforum is a bit like competing in the special olympics. no matter who wins, yer still retarded.

let the games commence!

trib

p.s. you older forum members can tell the younger ones how i feel about editing and deleting other's posts. tis verboten. heil tuan!

[Jeff Moore]

An observation:

I have been a regular reader of this forum for several years. My experience/expertise level is still growing and I use this forum primarily as a learning tool. It has served that purpose well. Over those years, while reading the posts from regular contributors, the reader (me) builds a mental image of that person in the mind, based on their contributions to this forum (as this is my only contact with them). Having read the couple of threads in question, the mental image I had built in my mind of a few (on both sides of the issue) is smaller today than it was yesterday. Just a thought to ponder.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have been a regular reader of this forum for several years. My experience/expertise level is still growing and I use this forum primarily as a learning tool. It has served that purpose well. Over those years, while reading the posts from regular contributors, the reader (me) builds a mental image of that person in the mind, based on their contributions to this forum (as this is my only contact with them). Having read the couple of threads in question, the mental image I had built in my mind of a few (on both sides of the issue) is smaller today than it was yesterday. Just a thought to ponder.



I know of nobody who goes through life worrying about what other people think about them. They might care what their family and friends think, but that's about it, so your thought needs no pondering.

[Sal Santamaura]

Here's a plea for consideration of this forum's avowed purpose: to build an archive of useful information about large format photography. Not to be a chat room.

In the thread that inspired this one, what percentage of posted words contributed usefully to the archive? Probably a very small number. My suggestion is that moderation (some might refer to this as censorship) be applied to delete posted matter that clutters the archive, since leaving it in makes searches much more difficult. Both personal diatribes and redundant questions fall into the 'clutter' category. If a thread is majority clutter, and the moderators are too time-limited to perform extensive editing, I'd suggest simply deleting the whole thing.

It seems a shame that all the effort expended by Tuan, Tom and others to bring back this forum can be squandered by people seeking advertising and entertainment. I hope those engaging in such activities will exercise restraint in the future and, if they don't, that the moderators will exhibit much less restraint in 'censoring.'

[Kirk Keyes]

I'm not for censorship, and I'm not for anarchy. There does need to be a line drawn. And QT is the one to decide as this board is his property.

But personally I don't think the previous thread in question really reached the point of needing intervention. I think that these exchanges should simply become part of the permanent record (or at least as much as this web site will allow). Why let people just walk away and have their words disappear in to the ether.

Heated dicussions are good, and there should be no need to limit them. We are all (I think) adults here and I think that is reflected in these exchanges...

How are we to know if Steve and Jorge are to ever come to some mutual resolution if the threads keep getting deleted or frozen. It could happen!

As far as not having to read something that you don't want to - why are you subscribing to a mailing list that will send you stuff that you have no control over. I would suggest that you unsubscibe and simply read the forum through the web site. Here's a link to it to help you all out: http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/

You can then browse through the threads to your heart's content and read only the threads you want. If you don't like where a thread goes, then click the back button. Doing that will only require one mouse click as opposed to the doezens of times you will have to delete all those emails you don't want to read.

Reading the forum through the web site also allows you to read ALL the posts in order. Doing so may help some people better see the context of a previous post, which may decrease the amount of misuderstandings as well.

But again, I vote for a very minimal amount of censorship, which I know also means a little bit of anarchy sometimes...

Kirk

[Jean-Louis Llech]

I have maybe found a very simple solution :
The forum administrator will create an new category of questions called "
"Quarrels" or "Domestic Fights" or "Gunfight at OK Corral".
If we see a thread belonging to this category, and if we are tired with all these annoying and useless topics, we just have to to click on the precedent or the following one.



That's what I will do, even if the category is not created. I use to come here to learn and to get informations about large format photography, sometimes to help people asking questions for which I have some experience or some informations.
I have no more time to waste about all this.

PS : Don't try to find an additional moderator, a psychiatrist will do a better job !

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

"A psychiatrist will do a better job" I'm sure not!

Hi Jean-Louis read the book "The men behind Hitler" in german "Die Männer hinter Hitler" then you get the answer on the psychiatrist's. We only need no firefights on this forum and a moderator more would have stopped it faster and we would not have this disscusion now! If some peoples behavior is like non existent they have to learn it the hard way!!! They shall go to an other forum, where they can play the game with virtual guns!

Just my personell opinion! More and better light to all of you, and of course the shadows on the right places!

[Jean-Louis Llech]

"We only need no firefights on this forum and a moderator more would have stopped it faster."
I totally agree with you, Armin.
My idea about psychiatrists was a pure joke, nothing else.
I consider that people who act in such an aggressive manner on this forum are neurotic persons, who waste this excellent media for large format photography information.

[Dan Smith]

In all this I find only one classless,crass, offensive and demeaning post. That of "tribby" about the special olympics.

He has a right to post what he wants... but this one tells all one needs to know about him.

[Saulius]

"The forum administrator will create an new category of questions called " "Quarrels" or "Domestic Fights" or "Gunfight at OK Corral". If we see a thread belonging to this category, and if we are tired with all these annoying and useless topics..."

No, no new catagory for annoying and useless topics. Just follow the guidelines and keep such stuff out. If you can't adhere to the simple guidelines just take the useless bickering someplace else.

Keep up the good work Neil.

[Blake]

dan,

you pc hippy. eat me.

the reetard,

trib

p.s. y'alls need to lighten up.

[MattO]

Jeez! This damn Pyro thing will just not die. Dan, if you want to read it all again, why not just archive it so you can go back and read it all again, and again, and again.....

Personally, I think that the bandwidth afforded this topic has exceeded its importance to the vast majority of us by a thousand fold, and if it has been deleted for any reason, it is none too soon.

If a certain chemical works for you, and you like it - great. What the hell do you care if someone else doesn't like it?

I think I'm gonna buy a MF rig................

[Ellis Vener]

Jorge wrote: ""I just do it to screw with him and ruin his day"

" I know of nobody who goes through life worrying about what other people think about them."

Perhaps Jorge should try looking in the mirror some time as he certainly seems to have some ego bruises from Simmons rejecting his article and is happy to show us his stigmata on a regular and ongoing basis. Personally I wish you well Jorge, but come on man, get over it and stop acting like a small child, and just do the work.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ellis, I have no problem with him rejecting my article, as I said, Sandy requested it months after it had been rejected. I did not even mentioned it to anybody. It was until simmons started addressing me and talking about things he obviously does not know anything about that I responded.

I also wish you well, but perhaps you should do the brown nosing without including me in your responses. As I told Neil and Tuan, I exercise restraint and ignore threads or responses made by you, Chris Jordan, Tim Atherton and simmons, unless I am addressed in those threads, why cant simmons and you use the same restraint? It is very simple, you ignore me and I will reciprocate. If you insist on dishing out crap, dont be surprised if I am right there sending it back your way.

[Ellis Vener]

Jorge,

Absolutely right, sorry I troubled you. As you suggest I will ignore you from now on. Life is too short to waste even this little time...