Since I've got two horses in this race, one for View Camera and one for the Moderation Team I figured it was time for me to chime in.
By and large all the comments have been well thought out and very useful to us as we move forward to continue to revise and rethink both the guidelines and how they are interperted. There is no reason to close the thread but I do think we have all the info and, believe me, we have a lot to chew on and think about.
Thanks to all for their contributions.
Darn, I was just getting started........................
It seems clear that most responders have no problem with these magazine postings, that they find them informative and not crass commerciallism. I would hope that they would be allowed to continue. Thank for the moderators' efforts on this. I'm sure you all have better things to do with your time.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Even after all these years, I just subscribed to VC Mag for the first time. I used to just check it out at Borders, and buy it if the issue was interesting. For a long time, there were lots of articles that just did not interest me. (Lately that is different, so I subscribed.) Posts like the Magnachrom and Steve's during all that time would have made it easier for me to decide if I wanted to drive to the bookstore. In other words, I think that for many of us, knowing the contents of an issue is valuable information when conveyed in an appropriate manner on this site.Originally Posted by Oren Grad
Another point: From VC Mag's point of view, Magnachrom may be (probably is) considered a competitor. In the publishing business, there are readers and there are advertisers. Publishers compete for both. Regardless of whether a fee is charged for the magazine, advertisers supply income to both of the magazines we have been discussing here. Readership is key to advertising rates - The higher the rate of readership, the higher the potential rates that the publisher can charge.
There are a variety of business models available to people searching to make a profit. The model chosen does not define who competes with whom.
I think it would be a good idea to revamp the guidelines so that we are not unintentionally favoring one competitor over the other based on the business model they choose to pursue.
QT has my full support. Rules are rules are rules. The VC editorial team seem to have found a way around QT's ruling anyway, sad. I know nothing about Magnachrom but if it is available as a free item I cannot see the problem. VC is a commercial enterprise and I support QT's interpretation of the Forums guidelines.
Pete.
And Magnachrom isn't??? What are you talking about?VC is a commercial enterprise
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
So is MagnaCHROM and all the people announcing workshops, books, calendars, etc. in the Announcements section. Why is one commercial enterprise forbidden from sharing information and others are permitted to post announcements, including prices, about their products and services?
Kerry
Pete,
You are correct, rules are rules and they should be fairly applied to all. There are many commercial and quasi-commercial postings on this site and it is a tough thing for the moderators to judge. Those of us who are familiar with both publications are just looking for equal treatment, both publications provide valuable information to the community and should be treated on an equal basis.
As a commercial enterprise that posts on various topics here, I say, the only feeling is we are crossing into a very slippery slope, when it comes down to it, it is the owners right, his will and his choice to allow or disallow particular topics and really none of us have the right to second guess them, there are rules posted and there will be interpretations of those rules, 100 different people will interpret those rules 101 different ways, the owner made a choice and it is his right to make the choice he made..if we want to make it fair, then we need to see different rules, but when it comes down to it, it is in fact QT's choice to allow or dis-allow something, as well as the moderation team he picked..and another thing I will add, when it comes to personally owned chat systems, there is no fair or not fair, it is at the discretion of the owner who pays the bills!
Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass
PS. After last two months I have had, I do appreciate the ability to post here, thanks again to all that make this possible.
I don't disagree with anything you have said here Dave. That is all very obvious. But...................
That does not change the fact that I can attempt to (and should attempt to) change an arbitrary application of the forum rules when I see it.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
The biggest problem Kirk, is arbitrary application of the rules comes with the ownership of the system, anyone of us that posts on a privately owned system is at the will and mercy of the person that owns it and sets the rules...this is not a democracy, it is in fact a privately owned system, I didn't see the thread in question that was deleted, so really have no horse in this race, but when it ultimately comes down to it, It was and is the owners choice...to allow or dis-allow a posting, period.
And believe you me, I have had messages deleted over the years on many different systems.
Dave
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks