Forum moderation; I am disturbed by the recent events...

[Peter De Smidt]

Or it was an unfortunate way to express yourself, a way that you should've realized would be throwing fuel on the fire. Your post was inadvertently "baiting".

[BrianShaw]

Wow; just wow.

[BrianShaw]

Maybe we all should give this topic a break and go back to an old favorite: what color, really, is an 18% gray card, and is it really middle gray that meters are calibrated.

[Midoski]

Doubling down on diplomatic discussion about the semantics of what is and is not permitted in rigid terms distracts from the simple fact:

We need more people like Richardman and their work. It really is great stuff and so are the words that come with it. What kind of statement are you making as a moderation team by not addressing this fact? Go somewhere else with your interesting work?

[RHITMrB]

Doubling down on diplomatic discussion about the semantics of what is and is not permitted in rigid terms distracts from the simple fact:

We need more people like Richardman and their work. It really is great stuff and so are the words that come with it. What kind of statement are you making as a moderation team by not addressing this fact? Go somewhere else with your interesting work?

It's already been clearly stated that this is a gear forum, not a photographic practice forum - so yes, any work that might prompt discussion should be posted elsewhere. That's why I won't be sharing my work here anymore.

[8thsamurai]

I should issue an apology for Richardman misreading my comment, and then casting it in a manner that was untrue? I don't think so. Either Richardman and others have a reading comprehension problem, or it was convenient to misconstrue the comment to fit their own purposes.

Although the First Amendment is not in force on this forum (it can't be, since we restrict topic matter to LF photography in most areas), Those who found my comment offensive, don't understand how the First Amendment works. All speech is protected under the First Amendment, not just the speech that is comfortable, trendy or politically correct in the minds of some of the people. The concept is that if all speech isn't protected, none can be.

There is a long-standing rule against making posts that are likely to invite others to reply in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules here. It's called "baiting". Our conclusion was that the quotes from the subjects in the portrait series, irrespective of the value of the work in the larger context, did just that, a fact that was borne out by responses that were inconsistent with the guidelines.

Even though the First Amendment is not in operation here, we do try to be even-handed. Thus, if we gave an exemption to quotes from transgender people, we would be obliged to make a similar exemptions to any others that might come along, however offensive they might be to most. Since this is a large format photography forum, not an arena for discussing sociopolitical issues, we chose not to go down that path.

Disciplinary actions taken by the moderators are done in private, as is appropriate. Banning isn't always the action taken, but even that isn't outwardly apparent.

Frankly you are the one who doesn't seem to know how the 1st amendment works, you can say whatever you want to in this country but that doesn't mean people can't be offended when you say offensive things. Feel free to think that people who find your comments distasteful are being "trendy" or "politically correct" the fact of the matter is that you are being called out for your words and actions, get used to it since you don't seem to understand why people would find that offensive. Being "evenhanded" is a poor excuse for poor moderation.

[Michael Mutmansky]

I think I figured out where the problem is folks...

Apparently, LF photography is only supposed to be used for things that are non-controversial, like landscape images or still life setups that only contain fruits, flowers and one or two holding vessles, like a vase and a bowl.

The moderators have no stomach for any topic that may be considered controversial by any other portion of the LF population. They said as much in the previous moderation thread:


" The thread was on watch from the start; based on experience we figured a high likelihood that it would go south. When it did, we were faced with a delete-vs-close judgment call. My judgment was that the thread would be a source of recurrent trouble. That's a debatable call. But following up on the point I made to Bryan, if the topic is so inflammatory and so sensitive that a thread closure, well-judged or not, is taken as presumptive evidence of bigotry and elicits a torrent of nasty ad hominem attacks, we might indeed be well advised to steer clear of it."


http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1347297

You are 'watching' threads in this manner??? Are you watching the members the same way, becasue if you are, I'm sure you can determine who are the most responsible for the problems in the forum and address THEM first, not the content of threads that are not being posted by a provocateur.


Look, we managed to survive the Frank Petronio incidents (possibly the biggest troller this forum has ever seen), and I feel the forum can survive with a little bit of controversy now and again, but it cannot survive if it is turned into the Milquetoast Large Format Photography Forum.

Thoughts for consideration, as I'm just about to tap out on the MLFPF.


---Michael

[IanG]

The moderation here has been very odd and quirky for years, good and ver poor with no names mentioned. It's all over the place and needs better direction

In contrast APUG a much larger Forum has good moderation and a very large cross Forum membership with this site. This is the only Forum where I've asked more than once who moderates the Moderators.

I'm sure that modrerators have made very minor changes that are irrelevant but cause them a greatly increased work load, to no ones benefit, sales & wanted section.

Moderators need to remember that we the members as LF photographers are what the site's about. I stand with those being censored.

Ian

[Midoski]

I've just been told that Richard is banned for this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...New-Forum-Site

Banning him seems like a pretty nasty way to handle the present conflict as moderators have stated that this forum is not the place for his work. If such lines are going to be drawn in the sand, will you also ban discussion about where we CAN post interesting work?

[Oren Grad]

Moderation has indeed gotten somewhat tighter on controversial topics, and based on this latest experience, it may well become tighter still. Those who want to engage with photo essays expressing clear agendas on controversial social, cultural or political issues will indeed need to find them in other venues. Our priorities are elsewhere. We will not allow this Forum to be destroyed by culture wars; we will defend this as a place where one can escape politicization, where people of radically different backgrounds and political and social views can share a common interest without coming to blows. We make no claim that what we do here is the sum total of what large format photography can be, nor that it is superior to other ways of engaging with the art and craft. But by the same token, we emphatically reject the notion that photography or art must be driven by a social or political agenda in order to have value.

The advice that we should moderate threads on sensitive topics differently is no help. We cannot win, no matter what we do. The response to our actions on Richard's thread is telling. As we have acknowledged, the approach initially taken was debatable. We continued to debate it, and might have revised it in ways that some may have found more congenial. But the message from the Feedback thread was clear: make the slightest mis-step in the eyes of those with a passionately-held point of view, and our reward will be a torrent of vicious, and as I've said elsewhere, frankly libelous abuse - baseless accusations of bigotry, arising from twisted, tendentious misreadings of what we had actually said and done and wild speculation about what our motives must be, imputing the least-charitable, most pejorative possible interpretation. We were baited with loaded questions intended to elicit self-damning responses, pressed repeatedly with insinuations of guilt-by-unintended-consequence, guilt-by-insufficient-sensitivity, guilt-by-aiding-and-abetting-evil. Everything we said by way of explanation was ignored or twisted to use against us.

Enough. Life is way too short. We are not Pinkertons for the critical poster in Richard's thread, but nor will we serve as Pinkertons for Richard or anybody else. Within this Forum, we will waste the minimum possible amount of energy in the fruitless task of trying to referee culture wars in a way that will be perceived as fair. We will steer away from trouble as we judge necessary, mindful of our fallibility and aware that we will inevitably make mistakes, but without apology for what we are trying to accomplish.

Based on the exchange to date, I do not expect anybody's mind to be changed by this. But we have always tried to be clear and candid about where we stand, and given the issues raised it is especially important on this occasion.

With that said, further attacks on the moderators with respect to any of these issues will be deemed malicious and will be dealt with through deletions and banning, as we judge necessary.