Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 148

Thread: Deleted View Camera Thread?

  1. #131

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Gentlemen,

    At this point, I think the forum moderators have all the data they need to consider this issue and reach a decision. I was very impressed that this thread received well over 100 responses without turning ugly and degerating to personal attacks. As it seems to be trending in that direction, maybe we should all just step back from our keyboards and let the moderators consider the opinions expressed and the suggested solutions. At this point rehashing our stated positions repeatedly doesn't really add anything to the discussion and only comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing.

    I'm not trying to discourage anyone from expressing any new ideas, just urging those who've had their say (including me), to step back and let the powers that be do their job.

    I think these open discussions of forum policies are a healthy part of the growth process - as long as they remain civil and respectful. The needs of this forum, and the general LF community, are constantly evolving. It is a credit to those who manage and moderate this forum that they recongnize these changing needs and are willing to accomodate such changes by openly discussing forum policies and potential policy changes. Whatever their decision in this matter, I rest assured that it will be thoughful and will be made with the best interests of the LF community in mind.

    Kerry

  2. #132
    Eric Biggerstaff
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,327

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    By and large this has been a civil discussion on the issues and I have enjoyed it.

    However, I think this issue has been covered and as it appears that a couple of posters are now making it personal I would suggest that this thread be locked before the flame wars begin.

    I think everyone has provided the moderators a great deal of solid input and they can now make their decisions.
    Eric Biggerstaff

    www.ericbiggerstaff.com

  3. #133

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Alpert View Post
    The only problems come about when hasty, hostile, or off-subject posts, such as the recent ones by Don H. and Mick N., move in. In the case of this thread, the question is about finding a way to allow commercial announcements while keeping the forum noncommercial in nature. It the noncommercial essence of the thing that makes a free exchange of ideas and information possible. I would say about this forum: so far so good. I hope my suggestion, or a better suggestion by someone else, is adopted by the moderators.
    Michael,
    You may well think my post is off-subject, but your response suggests otherwise. I like your idea of segregating commercial posts. However, you state:

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Alpert View Post
    I think if you do not have to pay anything for something, it is free. Like broadcast TV. It may not be a charity, but it is free.
    You state that you want the forum to remain non-commercial. If you don't agree that MC's posts are commercial, then you are misunderstanding a vein of business theory. Your solution simply moves one business (VC) to a segregated section, and allows the other business (MC) to use LFPF as the consumer base for its marketing arm.

    And we go straight back to arguing about the original problem the next time a post for a "free" service shows up in a general section.

    -Mick

  4. #134
    alec4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    655

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    One aspect to consider might be the difference in talking about a product or service without directly linking to it or discussing a price. What irritated me about the f295 post I mentioned versus the VC posts was the fact that the f295 post said, "Here is the rates for our symposium and here is a link to sign up." Whereas the deleted VC post said, "I am listing a bunch of articles that appear in the next magazine." with no links to the magazine, no info on issue cost, etc.

    To be fair, then, MC would have to abide by that same rules. "Here's a list of articles in our upcoming publication" with no link to the magazine and no talk about "register now". I'm with Kirk on the "free" thing. It's not really about whether something is free or not -- it's about keeping this non-profit forum from becoming a sales tool for for-profit businesses. The business model of the for-profit businesses should not be relevant.

    --A

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,736

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    DISCLAIMERS:
    (2). I DON'T KNOW STEVE SIMMONS, NOR DO I RITE FOR HIS MAGAZINE
    Hey Brian,

    Your spelling says that perhaps you should write for them...

    DISCLAIMER:

    1) THIS IS ALSO A JOKE!
    2) I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH VC MAG
    3) THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION

  6. #136
    Michael Alpert
    Guest

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Mick,

    I'll respond to you once and not more. Of course each magazine in question is a commercial business. With that said, if a product is provided without charge to the consumer, it is "free." Like weekly newspapers that are given away. The fact that the product is given away and paid for by advertisers has nothing to do with the legal status of the business. Both periodicals are commerical businesses.

    I suggested that each periodical be treated the same on this forum, which is what both publishers have also suggested. There really is no disagreement between them on this point.

    If we want to, we can see this discussion as an opportunity for the forum to refine its policy. Let's stay on subject.

  7. #137
    MJSfoto1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Boston Massachusetts
    Posts
    271

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by alec4444 View Post
    To be fair, then, MC would have to abide by that same rules. "Here's a list of articles in our upcoming publication" with no link to the magazine and no talk about "register now". I'm with Kirk on the "free" thing. It's not really about whether something is free or not -- it's about keeping this non-profit forum from becoming a sales tool for for-profit businesses. The business model of the for-profit businesses should not be relevant.
    I'm willing to abide by that.
    (I still think Steve's post should not have been deleted).
    (and I think Steve should have waited until his mag was shipping to publish the TOC and none of this would have happened).

    However, we do need to discuss the following:
    Pretty much 100% of the photographers on this forum have links to their website(s) where they actively sell prints and/or services. The fact that they only make $1000 per year doesn't disqualify them from "being for-profit" in nature. The reality is this: everything on the web has some degree of comercialism -- it is a continuum. We as a forum simply need to decide to what degree. If MC loses money for the next three years (which is what we expect) but a photographer with links to his photos or workshops or equipment for sale makes tens of thousands of dollars, then who of the two is more "commerical" in nature? Should said photographer be allowed free reign? While the money-losing venture is bound by the same rules as the money-making ventures? Would it REALLY make a difference if MC or VC were a non-profit? (this is easy to do and wouldn't change a thing other than we would be then able to toot our horn and say "hey! we are a non-profit -- so give us a better break than a for-profit organization")

    This has been an interesting discussion. There are few, if any pure "non commercial" parties on this forum. Everybody has something to sell. Everyone has an alterior motive. Including pretty much everyone who has posted to this thread.

    So how do we solve this?

    I'd be willing to have a sticky thread in the Announcment section called "MAGNAchrom Latest Issue" where we could continue to post the new TOC of the current shipping issue and members could add to the thread or skip it altogether. VC and all other publications would be bound to do the same.

    As for individuals promoting their favorite commercial enterprise through (obvious) subversive postings, I'm not sure what to suggest here. Clearly they are trying to do an end-around, but I don't see a viable solution other than to allow the moderators to use their subjective reasoning to determine what is best for the forum.

    I would also be wiling to officially support this forum as I'm sure VC would. Much like the way APUG does it either with banner ads or a sponsorship section. Basically, it would mean LF forum getting in bed with the devil.

    How would people feel about that?

  8. #138
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    I don't know about making a "sticky" threads for this purpose, since that means that the commercial content always stays at the top of the list, but I think it's a good idea, if there are to be commercial posts, that they be restricted to a single thread for each enterprise, so that the advertisers may continue to update that thread, but may not post a new thread for every update.

  9. #139

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Alpert View Post
    I suggested that each periodical be treated the same on this forum, which is what both publishers have also suggested. There really is no disagreement between them on this point.
    Based only on the issue at hand, i.e. posting TOC of upcoming issues, I agree that VC and MC should be treated equally.

    I don't agree, however, that the two magazines, should be treated equally on this site in every respect . Even though both are clearly commercial, one is free to subscribers, and the other is not. As QT wrote earlier, "The difference looks obvious enough to me. To read VC, you need to subscribe or buy the issue. The contents of Magnachrome is available for free to readers. If VC posts a PDF that is accessible for free, announcements such as the deleted thread would be appropriate. In fact, in several occasions Steve Simmons has been allowed to refer to the free section of the VC site." Google and Photoshop are both commercial but one I have to pay for and the other is free. That is a difference to me of some distinction.

    You complain about the personal nature of some comments. The fact of the matter is that Steve Simmons does have a long history of using the free forums to advertise and create publicity for his magazine. I saw this on the old rec-photo groups, saw it on APUG when he was there, and have seen it here. The moderators here, at least some of them, seem aware of that history.

    Sandy King

  10. #140

    Re: Deleted View Camera Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by MJSfoto1956 View Post
    However, we do need to discuss the following:
    Pretty much 100% of the photographers on this forum have links to their website(s) where they actively sell prints and/or services. The fact that they only make $1000 per year doesn't disqualify them from "being for-profit" in nature.
    OK, I'm a bad boy. I urged others to call a cease fire and here I am posting again an hour later (Bad Kerry, no biscuit).

    Michael,

    This is not part of this issue and discussing it here only serves to muddy the waters. Three or four line .sig files (like yours, for example) have always been permitted here - and on other non-commercial forums dating back to way before Al Gore (or anyone else) invented the internet. They go way back to the usenet newsgroups (and probably arpanet before that). They were permitted in the original lusenet (based the usenet model) version of this forum hosted on greenspun.com and are clearly permitted - even encouraged - in this forum.

    At the very least, they clearly identify the poster's affiliations so others reading their posts know who they are and what entities, if any, they represent. A .sig file is not an advertisement, it is more like a business card. They are permitted here whether the poster is an individual photographer, a magazine publisher, a manufacturer's rep or a product distributor. They are a totally separate issue from what is being discussed in this thread and are already permitted under the current forum guidelines.

    Kerry

Similar Threads

  1. View Camera vs. Field Camera
    By radchad in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 3-Oct-2006, 14:45
  2. Field Camera vs. View Camera
    By Mark_3705 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2003, 03:03
  3. Camera delivery and service stories :an alternative view
    By bob moulton in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 6-May-2002, 12:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •