Again, this is NOT allowed. No political discourse is allowed anywhere on this site.Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Wow. So much for reasonable compromise.
What a bad precedent to set. Just takes one member with an axe to grind or with a personal agenda to make a knowlingly controversial remark, and the thread gets shut down. I am still waiting for Mr Barker to issue an apology for his ill-advised analogy. I note that the member who made a homophobic slur to another has not been banned. Unbelievable.
Right. As I saw it, that is exactly what happened.
However, what you did with the moderation (and the subsequent double-down) effectively punishes Richard, not the trolls who turned it into a taboo topic that you felt the need to moderate.
If you can't see that you just acted as a Pinkerton to the trolls agenda then you need to step back and reevaluate your position.
What you should have done is deleted the off-topic political/social debate and banned the trolls from posting to the thread. But you didn't. You decided to penalize Richard from posting his images with contextual text any further and effectively did nothing about the trolls, because they are free to continue trolling on any other topic or issue that they may choose.
An internet troll is someone who desires to create a disruption. Having their posts deleted is no penalty to them; it is in part a confirmation that they are succeeding. The moderators need to figure out a better way to handle trolling to penalize the trollers, not the parties whom are drawn into a debate with them because I feel that anyone who is attacked by a troll should be permitted to defend themselves. When a troll strikes, especially on a topic like personal work (which is the case with Richrard's images and the thread), a poster should be allowed to defend himself but not have it result in the removal of his ability to continue posting the original work content, presuming that the work itself was not a trolling attempt (which it was not).
Do you see where your moderation failure occured?
---Michael
+1!
Very constructive writing. I completely agreed with Michael. David
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.
I'm a long time lurker and sometimes contributor and if someone doing work as good as Richard cant post photos along with simple and interesting context because it might be "political", then I think that speaks volumes about the immaturity of the moderation staff's actions.
I'll likely be punished for this statement since the word "libel" keeps getting thrown around unfairly, but simply put: it's the moderator's jobs to figure out what kind of discussion they want to encourage or discourage and how lines are drawn.
Everyone criticizing yesterday's actions share what I think is a common thread: this whole incident would have been a simple manner of asking a specific poster or two to take their comments somewhere else as they weren't contributing to the spirit of Richard's thread. It isn't a hard line to define nor is it actually difficult to manage if you act maturely and exercise even a basic understanding of how to conduct a respectful conversation on a topic. An inability to draw a line such as this speaks volumes about the moderation's inability to handle anything but the simplest photo discussion, and seeing as a forum is as only as good as it's moderators: this forum has shown it cannot handle even the mildest of interesting topics.
This is my perspective as a general outsider, someone who doesn't have a deep connection to this place. I wont be speaking fondly of this place or encouraging people to post their work here. I realize how my writing comes off and that Oren will likely have a stern response and delete my post or something because that seems to be acceptable mod behavior, but I'm willing to stake my account on something I feel is as important as Richard's ability to post simple context with his great work.
Please look deep within yourselves, moderation team, and realize that keeping conversations respectful in the face of topics that *some* people find difficult (transgender/gender-fluidity) is a much more venerable position to take than just blackballing all work surrounding a topic, and actively discourages this place from growing and encouraging EXCELLENT contributors such as Richard from having a presence here.
The First Amendment protects your right to say such a thing, as well as my right to criticize your shortsightedness both in saying it and in refusing to acknowledge any possible interpetation other than your own.
edit: I'm still shocked that you seem to think that allowing transgender people's stories to be told means that you will then be obliged to give voice to Nazis. It's so absurd as to be unbelievable as an explanation for your reasons for closing the thread.
From what groups are quotes permitted? Everyone is part of some group - white, black, gay, straight, etc.
Honestly I am with you - I think the quote was misconstrued somewhat. However, I do believe images and quotes/stories from, for instance, the KKK could make for a good photo project (it's been done) and should be allowed. For instance, on this forum, there has been images and quotes from various groups, including Richard's other projects. They just weren't a group in the news as being oppressed. In the pursuit of fairness, any group should be allowed to tell their life story, even if they are Nazis or something.
My personal opinion is that stories that do not present a political viewpoint are not politics. If that were the case, okay. If they just describe their life, how is that political? Any quote from an African-American is therefore political because of current discussions in the news about BLM?
I understand perfectly that the moderators believe the life stories of transgender people are too controversial to be posted in this forum. Disgusting.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks