For Entertainment Purposes - Censorship

[Tom Diekwisch]

... just thought you guys might get a kick out of this one...

I'm deleting your thread from the photo.net Site Feedback forum. Thanks for your opinion, but this thread isn't about whether photo.net should have a subscription model or not, so your post isn't on-topic. By the way, you can subscribe -- or not -- it is up to you. Subscription is on the honor system, and if you don't think you participate enough that a subscriptin is called for, that is your decision. But at least have the courtesy not to interfere with the efforts of the site to support itself through a subscription drive.

Brian Mottershead

For clarity, here's your original posting:

SUBJECT: Response to Photo.net Now Accepts Credit Cards / Subscription Drive

BODY: ... makes you appreciate the http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ site even more. I guess with my postings 90% is contribution toward the community and less than 10% discussion/question. Possibly, in all my years at photo.net, I might have asked five questions. I for once would certainly seize to contribute if the deal was increasingly subscription-driven

[Frank Petronio]

Brian and Bob Atkins banned me for life because I questioned why they banned another participant. He even threatened to sic the FBI one me for computer crimes when I re-registered using a new email address. This was after 2000 fairly helpful and polite posts and paying for membership. Apparently a large PN doner asked that Jay be banned, and anyone who protested that he was banned unfairly was also banned.

What's absurd is that it is our posts, images, and banter that made PN the largest forum. But like AOL, they churn and P.O. thousands of members a month...

Likewise, APUG bans you if you criticize Littman, who advertises his cameras on the site.

QT and Rob Galbraith run the best photo forums. No B.S. - all straight shooters. My thanks to them.

[John_4185]

APUG's sysop, Sean, is an odd chap, driven very much by the 'loyalty' of advertisers and big donors, and he is possibly rather desperate: I predict that he will fold and include digital cameras and photography soon enough.

Remember this one, Frank? It got me censored the first time, then he booted me and blocked my whole IP range.

http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/a2.gif

Yeah, that's how I feel about what Kodak is up to. If/when they drain the pension funds just before they collapse, you might feel the same way.

[Tom Diekwisch]

Thanks, folks, that certainly was some sort of a reality check. I am still baffled. I wish there was some sort of a non-PN medium format forum, that's where most of my contributions were. From this forum, and BTW especially from Bob Salomon, but also from others, I have gotten a lot of help since I only started LF maybe a decade ago. Thousand thanks to QT. Now I only can imagine what it might have taken to get the forum back!

[Steve Hamley]

Well, this post is technically off-topic, but I'll add my thanks to QT and crew. It is a nice place.

Steve

[Doug Dolde]

Don't think that Galbraith wouldn't do the same thing. They are ruthless at deleting posts that do not please them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, it is not all as cut and dry as Frank and jj put it. I dont know what happened with Frank, but jj was very abusive not only in the general tone of the posts but actually posting words like f***ing, etc, etc when he addressed other members, so I am not surprised he was banned. Now if he was participating in a flame war with any one person, it is understandable, but he seemed to just pick up and insult a wide variety of members. From what I understand the straw that broke the camel's back was a very insulting personal message with cuss words towards another member.

OTOH I do agree that the first time he was blocked for having his Kodak avatar it was unfair and heavy handed, it happens.

As to the Littman advertisement, his is a small footer advertisement that is not really worth that much to the APUG site owner, most likely Frank was asked to chill since the Littman saga has been rehashed in most forums, in fact if I recall correctly Frank has been as recently as last week on the APUG site.....

I too have been banned from PN, I dont care and I dont have a need to publicize it. Frankly I dont miss it. If you are not happy with any site just dont visit it, nobody is forcing you to do it.

To get back on topic, Tom I am not surprised BM does not want you to rock the boat. Dont give it a second thought and move on, PN is really easy to leave by the wayside......

[Frank Petronio]

Galbraith at least states that he runs a tight ship and posts the rules up front. So if you start speculating or trolling, then you get deleted.

For a short period I ran the Underground Leica Forum for disaffected PN Leica forum regulars, all 200 of them. Then I started getting hate email and creepy personal threats. The job of being a moderator is very under-rated, and I can forgive almost everybody but a jerk like Atkins for not being a "perfect" moderator becuase its a sucky job.

[Simon_5884]

What is QT?

[John_4185]

Jorge misses a point, and also has somewhat selective memory. The F*** thing was exactly that, askerisks, not the auto-oblitherated text that APUG creates. If the person didn't get the point, then so be it. It was a rather mean test of humor, but preceeded in plenty by others. Sean was ticked because, as he wrote to me after I wrote to him, that people complained about the picture (above) I used in a Kodak thread, and he found it easier to remove posts than to explain. Those who objected? Of course, they are vested individuals.

Now Jorge, I don't want to get into a contest as to who can be more irascible; suffice to say I would consider you well ahead of me in that regard. You win.

[Tom Diekwisch]

Quang-Tuan Luong = QT.

Jorge, your comment is really insightful. I just never would have thought that forum moderators were that intolerant. In general, all discusions are obviously helpful to the site, even if people disagree with one thing or another. They certainly boost contribution, and ultimately boost impact. Thus, I'd welcome all contributions, if I was them. But, obviously, I am not. However, after learning about just how narrow-minded PN administration is, I will certainly consider my involvement with the site. Thanks, Jorge.

[Mark Sawyer]

"What is QT?"

Q.-Tuan Luong, host and editor of this forum and the large format home page, and quite a respected large format photographer himself. My thanks also to QT for putting up with us. By my reckoning, this community is the most valuable photography resource online.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well jj, at least I have never sent insulting e mails or pm to people....I would say you are ahead in that regard.

[Sean Ross]

I hate to post a response to this thread but feel it's only fair to give my side of the story. I think the stats speak for themselves.. apug is 3yrs old, over 8,000 registrations, and less than 5 users banned in 3 years. The one in this thread told me to go 'f' myself after a tirade of vulgar posts because I refused to allow his urinating avatar to be visibile all over the forums, he also had a history of pushing people's buttons, so find me any webmaster who will keep a member like this? And where are these big donors you mention who pull my puppet strings, I'd sure like to know.. The most any advertiser pays is $35 a month for a banner, so that is going to influence how I run the community? I don't think so. I'm lucky to break even when I factor in operating costs and labor, and I still work 50-60 hours a week at my non apug day job. "APUG bans you if you criticize Littman", APUG bans you if you flame members repeatedly and that's a known policy, and Frank wouldn't give the Littman thing a rest. Also Frank has not been "banned"..

[John_4185]

Sean, the dynamics are like this: first you antagonize one by censoring without notice; you just delete the posts as if nothing had occured. You give special dispensation to certain members, _and_ you ban people who are not vulgar who remain on-topic but simply consistently disagree with you. That creates a climate of antagonism that can escalate, and _you_ set it in motion and _you_ escalate the affair.

If you learn nothing, then watch this forum to see that it does not happen here because QT treats people with respect. Respect begets respect. The community self-moderates. Do you see how that works? Your list fosters fops and wags . You have perhaps four worthwhile posters, and they participate here, too. The rest is turning into a display of contortions as posters pat themselves on the back for not pissing you off and not being like the people you don't like.

[neil poulsen]

This thread could easily turn into a flame war. Please, let's not do that. Neil (Moderator)

[Will Strain]

It's the reality of a moderated forum. It's their sandbox, and their rules. I personally have never found the PN or APUG moderators to be heavy handed.

We have a choice, as always, to leave if we don't like the way things are done, be censored and banned when we push back against them, or to respect the way they've decided to run their forums.

Anyway, that's my $.02 - and is not meant to be a criticism, or a taking of sides. Just a statement about how I see the reality of the situation.

[Alec Jones]

Please don't leave out LEX over at the P/N film and printing forums, from mention. He banned me for life for criticising HIM, not a forum member, ONCE. Rather draconian I feel.

Won't go any further, Neil.

[John D Gerndt]

I would like to say that I am proud to be a part of THIS forum. It is one very rare instance of people contributing to each other's knowledge in the best way. In the atmosphere described above I believe it incumbent upon all contributors to give the editor a break and stay away from flammable topics or at least approach them with greatest appropriate caution.

A great pile of facts that are not contributing to making better photographs and instead cause rancor to flourish are misplaced here. I, for one, am not here to change the world or even anybody’s opinion. I have nothing to prove. I hope to contribute and to say thanks to others who contribute too and I do thank you all. That would include the editor who works a (usually) thankless task.

Cheers,

[Don Miller]

I like forums where people are man (and woman) enough to use their real names...... I am miles ahead in LF of where I would be without the contributions of many of you, especially QT and Kerry.

I do run a photography forum, but I've banned everyone. I like the peace and quiet.

[Ole Tjugen]

I like this forum, and I like APUG. I like a couple more, too, and I think there is a reason to keep all of them.

I still look in on PN once in a while, but it's far from my favorite forum.

As far as censorship is concerned, moderators are generally "moderate" people and it takes a lot to antagonise them. I would go so far as to say you really need to make an effort to be banned, at least from APUG. Everyone who has been banned from APUG had delivered several good applications for banishment before it finally happened. I can't say what it takes on other sites though, never having banned or been banned myself ;)

[David R Munson]

This is still the best forum I have ever been on. PN used to be a lot better, but the mods are getting ever more power-hungry and abusive. I hate APUG in general, and I'll leave it at that. When censorship and such are present, they need to be visible and justified. Their sandbox or not, if they start treating everyone like some sort of crappy minion, the quality of the community is going to fail. I've modded forums in the past, and sometimes you just have to censor or delete posts (or parts of them) and sometimes ban people. That's just how it goes. When you stop being fair as a mod or admin, though, and just start screwing with people who you don't happen to always agree with, you're well on your way to falling down that slippery slope to eFascism. It happens on PN, on APUG, and unfortunately on a great deal of the many forums I've been on over the years, photography-related or otherwise.

[Kevin M Bourque]

There's always people that live on the boundaries. Some are there by accident, and some are there because they thrive on chaos and attention. Some of those in the second category are masters at violating the spirit of the law while obeying the letter. They put their toes 1/4" over the line and cry, "who, me?" when someone reminds them of the rules.

On the other hand, these forums are all owned by someone and the owners get to do whatever they want, including banishment and censoring. Its part of the deal. That all participants would be happy all the time is at least unlikely and probably impossible. Some people just can't be happy anywhere.

Last, in a big enough system, someone is going to get punishment they don't deserve. It's the law of large numbers.

Just to be clear I have absolutely NO ONE in mind as I make these observations. I don't have time to keep track of who has a sharp tounge or who is critical of the management.

[Tom Diekwisch]

I guess Kevin is certainly way off my original point. What I meant to say was something like Frank mentioned at the beginning, that PN is certainly not there because of the cool moderation nor because of their server, but rather because of a lot of volunteers. PN started out at a time when many were enthusiastic about the free spirit on the internet, and on this premise were willing to share their information. Certainly, that was the point for me. Now, in retrospect, PN probably always has been set up to become the giant mouse trap for advertisement and paid subscription that it is about to become, but the signs at the beginning were negligible and lured many willing supporters in. I guess I shared this e-mail because I wanted others to be aware. If I'd known that clearly, I'd stopped contributing to PN much earlier. And once more, I appreciate this forum and the spirit of its moderation.