Stricter Guildelines Enforcement Now In Effect

[Merg Ross]

How so Merg? Other than a couple of hundred fewer regular users, what differences do you perceive?

Sal, I would consider the mere necessity of this thread as one. And, for those into the numbers, quantity is not quality. Are the For Sale and Lounge included in those figures? Kirk? Thanks.

[jeroldharter]

Although I am guilty at times, I agree with the moderators. Even if I didn't agree, it would not matter as the forum is a private venture and those in charge make the rules. Because of the rules here, this forum is a much better place than APUG which I rarely look at anymore.

I agree that some discretion is advised: I would have a much higher tolerance for a few obsessive old men arguing heatedly about lens design or the merits of pyro than I would arguments about the politics/economics.

[photobymike]

Sure is a lot about nothing..... Ken ..while i am in your house i will abide by your rules... Can you imagine if all these members actually met each other.... We could all meet in the Buccaneer football stadium ... sell tickets and take bets on who would survive ....

[soeren]

I still wonder why this is neccesarry. I participate in a couple of other foras and this place is the only one regularly exposing such troubles, why? Are members here less polite? More narrowminded? Don't we know how to behave on an internet forum, like children who don't know when to back off and let it go? Or are the rules and their enforcement different? Does a union for Fora moderators exist, some place for exchanging views and info for mods only? Or is it just that I'm blind to the issues facing all internet foras?
I find the idea about using the ignore function more to be quite good. maybe it just works when locked in but most lock in to see whats new and to ansver in threads. Remember it takes two to tango

Best regards

[Doremus Scudder]

Am I the only one who is blind or oblivious to this problem?

I have been reading and posting here since 1998. Although I do see some of the "dumbing down" referred to above, I rarely read posts that contain personal insults. Maybe I'm just lucky in choosing topics to read/respond to.

Any vehement disagreement is bound to get a bit intense, but as long as the tone and the manner of address are no more belligerent than that in the British Parliament ("I submit that my esteemed colleague has lost touch with reality or is out of his blinkin' mind!" ... "Hear, hear!"), I find nothing to object to. If one engages in controversy, one must be prepared to accept contrary opinions and even politely-framed attacks on his/her competence. I sincerely hope that no one is ever banned for such an exchange.

Mods, I appreciate what a hard job you have and appreciate greatly your efforts and your dedication. Let me express my utmost gratitude and admiration here before I wager a bit of constructive criticism. I might suggest that banning someone immediately, even for a few days, is a trifle harsh, maybe even overreacting. Deleting the offending post and sending a warning as a private message first seems adequate to me for first offenders. For those that have a history and have been warned once, an immediate ban may appropriate. I would, however, not go about banning people for polite, but vehement disagreement. Suggesting that someone does not know what he/she is talking about, is misleading others or is just simply dead wrong, even when expressed in strong terms, does not fall in the category of personal insult or coarse language or name-calling in my book.

More objectionable to me are vulgar terms thinly disguised by using acronyms (WTF) or using special characters in place of some letters ($h!t) used by many to spice up their posts. However, I wouldn't dream of banning anyone for that... (I might consider it for those who overuse "lol" though...)

As for buying and selling here; if it is forbidden to point out that someone is trying to rip off unsuspecting buyers or is misrepresenting an item, then I'll just stick with eBay and its buyer protection plan.

Best,

Doremus

[Ken Lee]

Out of 2700 active members, there are probably only 2 or 3 who might be affected by the stricter guidelines.

Those are the high maintenance members who are frequently rude, insulting, political, and meddling.

My arithmetic may be wrong, but I believe they represent around 1/10 of 1%, and they (used to) take up 99% of moderators time. Moderators who are themselves Large Format photographers, not psychiatric nurses.

[Ken Lee]

If members get a vote I'd suggest that you need more variety in the world view in the mods. All good people but I'd like to see someone who when you say "Large Format Photographer" *doesn't* immediately think of Ansel Adams.

Sorry, I reached for an image that was close at hand. Here are some others. I'll bet that 99.9% of forum members can pass the following test with flying colors.

Which ones are the Large Format photographers, and which ones are the psychotherapists ?

[sanking]

I disagree. A moderator's "world view" is irrelevant. The only view they need to have when performing their duties is of the forum rules.

Absolutely. The moderator's don't set the agenda for what kind of photography members practice or members take, or for their technical or aesthetic strategies in general, or for what is show and discussed on the forum. Voting on a moderator's "world view" makes about as much sense as making them sign a pledge to not oppress Australian sheepherders.

Sandy

[John O'Connell]

The problem with the ignore list is that sometimes the people on your ignore list become moderators.

[BrianShaw]

I hope I passed Ken's test. I can't wait until the answers are posted!