Forum Change Announcement

[Brian Ellis]

Although I respect the continuing efforts of the moderation team, this decision was not necessary. Bookburning by any other name is still bookburning. This action is sad and represents a rather unsophisticated response to a non-issue. Quite honestly, I think the decision, without any discussion with the general forum populace demonstrates a great amount of hubris on the moderation team's part.

The lounge was easily blocked by anyone. It's simple, just like any other medium, if the content offends you do not tune in. IMO, the decision shows heavy handed censorship as the default rather than exploring alternative methods to address the perceived issues. Personal attacks and failure to "play nice" are easily handled without such actions. They were addressed on other photo forums without overreaching censorship. Why not here?

Regards,
Geary

A magazine is judged by its content. Time magazine doesn't carry pornography. The NY Times doesn't carry the same stories as the National Inquirer (even though nobody would have to read those stories if they were printed). That isn't "censorship" or "book burning." Privately owned and operated publications have the right to formulate their own editorial policies and to decide what they will print and what they won't. Similarly, this forum is judged by its content and the Lounge as previously constituted demeaned the entire forum in my opinion and the opinion of others. Deleting certain types of discussions isn't "censorship," it reflects an editorial decision by the people who run the forum as to what content is appropriate for the forum and what isn't. The fact that nobody was obligated to read the Lounge is irrelevant.

[Roger Thoms]

Good to here the lounge is being discontinued.
Roger

[jim kitchen]

I thought I blocked the lounge...

Did someone leave the lounge door open?

jim k

[Geary Lyons]

A magazine is judged by its content. Time magazine doesn't carry pornography. The NY Times doesn't carry the same stories as the National Inquirer (even though nobody would have to read those stories if they were printed). That isn't "censorship" or "book burning." Privately owned and operated publications have the right to formulate their own editorial policies and to decide what they will print and what they won't. Similarly, this forum is judged by its content and the Lounge demeaned the entire forum in my opinion and the opinion of others. Deleting it isn't "censorship," it reflects an editorial decision by the people who run the forum as to what content is appropriate for the forum and what isn't. The fact that nobody was obligated to read the Lounge is irrelevant.

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

Completely agree.

[Marko]

Completely agree.

Lupus in fabula!

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

[domenico Foschi]

Then it doesn't make much sense to offer a Lounge where you can have off topic discussions aside of politic and religion.
Either you have a Lounge or you haven't.

I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

[Frank Petronio]

Right, the problem is that the rules now are vague and arbitrary.

Simply banning the IPs of the worst offenders and double identities would be far more practical.

I don't see the moderator's job getting any easier... in fact this will make it worse.

While depriving the fair and civil players of an interesting -- and very popular -- outlet.

Sounds like our government at work, not clear-headed photographers... lol

[Geary Lyons]

I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

Thank you for explaining. Perhaps an analogy, just, IMO, a poor one. If there is any similarity, IMO, it is dubious, at best.

I have read the responses. I was able to recognize and comprehend the arguments, both pro and con. The broad brush assumptions, that you appear to make, are not very factual. It may be the way you perceive the responses as you represent, but I did read the responses and drew a different inference. I wasn't the only voice disappointed by the decision and/or the lack of implementing already available actions to stem the issues.

Yes, it is censorship. Yes, it is a modern equivalent to bookburning. When someone says because "I do not want to hear" and/or "I will not read", therefore no one else should either, I am offended. I DO feel deprived. It is not right. It goes against my core values. IMO, such action diminishes the value of this community.

Yes, there are a multitude of other political and religious sites on the web. So what? I am not a member of any of those communities. I have no common bond to those memberships. I value the intercourse in this forum, whether or not I always agree, because of the common bonds. This is a community, for most of us, based on the pursuit of art. Art has always been undeniably intertwined with the religious and political milieu.

It is, to me, sad, that some feel that because they don't like or appreciate something, they are justified in denying same to others. It is a small minded approach to a universe expansive beyond our imagining.

Regards,
Geary