I have been a member of this forum for more than sixteen years....

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have been a member of this forum for more than sixteen years and always liked it.
Recently however it is ruled by guidlines and run by moderators like a division of the GESTAPO.
Censorship is the rule of the day. I thought freedom of speach was guaranteed in most western constitution.
I seriously think we need Frank Petronino to make a revolution !

[rich815]

Shhhh. Just go about your day...

[Kevin Crisp]

No constitution guarantees you freedom of speech on a private forum.

[Ralph Barker]

Gudmundur, this forum has always been ruled by guidelines, even when it was part of the lusenet forums. Admittedly, the guidelines have become more complex over time, as the increase in membership has resulted in more people finding "creative" ways of getting around the rules. The increase in membership has also resulted in more people who don't think there should be guidelines at all, even though they agreed to abide by them when they registered.

FWIW, Frank tried to run his own Leica-oriented forum, with essentially no rules, for a while. He gave up and closed it, as it quickly got completely out of hand.

[domaz]

If you want to see what a free speech, no rules forum looks like it, browse some YouTube comments someday..

[Jim Jones]

This is the most informative photographic forum that I visit. This will be diluted if it becomes a bully pulpit for those with little to say, and not enough wit to be entertaining.

[jp]

Gudmundur: Making a beeline for Godwin's law here!

[djdister]

We all want Moderators moderating in moderation, don't we :)

Seriously though, any democratic forum can have a tendency to veer from a under-moderated to an over-moderated state (or vice versa), as it is a process that is in a state of continual self-evaluation, based on a wide-ranging variety of feedback. Reaching that perfect middle ground, as we all know, can be challenging. Given the overall quality of the forum members and the forum moderators, I believe we are on the right path. Don't give up...

[Argentum]

if people keep to discussing photography then there's little if anything to get worked up about. It's only when the discussion turns to religion (aka the zone system) do things get nasty. There is always some jerk trying to push their agenda with regards to the ZS.

Yours,

Guilty as everyone else.

[Mark Sawyer]

First they came for the digital photographers, and I didn't say anything because I didn't shoot digital... :rolleyes:

The moderation isn't perfect, but I don't demand perfection. And I don't call people the Gestapo for trying their best to keep things civil. Better to leave the Nazi-name-calling to the presidential candidates, I think, but that's just me...

[Tobias Key]

This forum is the friendliest and most useful one I visit.

If a beginner asks a question they get treated politely and usually furnished with the correct answer.

I use one model networking forum where the technical knowledge is pitiful, and the petty points scoring is incredibly tedious.

The knowledge I have got here for free would have cost me thousands in workshops or short courses.

I am really very grateful this place exists.

[Michael Graves]

Personally, I like having the forum moderated. Such a policy tends to reduce the sniping and trolling that seems so prevalent on other boards. Yes, I have had a few of my posts deleted (I can be as testy as the next old guy!) but every time that happened, I could (sort of) see why it did. Not once have I gotten into an argument with one of the moderators. A few years ago, the insults and bicker started to get so bad that I was thinking of turning to APUG for respite.

That lasted about sixteen seconds.

[stawastawa]

Gudmundur, It sounds like you are frustrated by something.

It sounds like you see the moderators everywhere, do you want to see more posts by more people and less by the moderators?
Is there something specific the moderators are doing you do not like?

[Struan Gray]

Ve haf vays of making you haf deja fu all ofver again!

[Peter De Smidt]

Ve haf vays of making you haf deja fu all ofver again!

Nice one, Struan.

[Struan Gray]

I try :-)

[Michael Mutmansky]

I, for one, was happy to see a personality like FP go. He was a bomb thrower and provocateur and was little else through the majority of his stay here. In other words, an internet troll.

However, I do agree that the moderation has become more heavy handed of late. I don't see the point in closing threads just because they are old and may have been 'answered'. This forces any continuing dialogue to happen in a new thread, and that causes discontinuity in the conversation.

It's pretty clear that the moderators have an idea what an internet forum like this is supposed to be and they nudge the conversations and members to make that fit their concept. I'm not judging that either way; it's their forum to do with what they want, but it wouldn't be what I would do.

That said, the forum seems to run reasonably smoothly, but I don't go to the Lounge, so I don't see the majority of the idiot award competitions (is there still a Lounge?).

This forum is a very useful resource, and I hope that the moderation doesn't drive away the knowledge base of the members.


---Michael

[goamules]

I have been a member of this forum for more than sixteen years and always liked it.
Recently however it is ruled by guidlines and run by moderators [gasp! oh no! added by me] like a division of the GESTAPO.
...

I thought rules have made the world civilized since the Babylonians, through the Greeks and Romans, to the rule of law of today. Especially when the majority have agreed to the rules. Anarchy and fringe beliefs of what is right don't work in communities.

[goamules]

Here is how the perfect, democratic rule forum would work. For moderation, any posts could be "voted" on by either an "electorate" of many members, or all members. It would require a majority for that action to occur. Those could only vote to delete a post, or lock a thread. "Liking" a particular post would not be part of the process, only "not liking/breaking the rules" would. That way there would not be a 50/50% split of people that like the post, and those that don't. But ONE person couldn't take the action. Too bad there isn't a simple technology to do that.

[LabRat]

A wise person I know once told me that the price of freedom is not for free... And democracy is an experiment, and society is about social interaction... Hopefully reasonable rules and understandings hold these fragile threads together...

Steve K

[jb7]

First they came for the digital photographers, and I didn't say anything because I didn't shoot digital... :rolleyes:

I haven't read the next page, but I'd just like to mention that I am Sparatcus, too.

Gudmundur, a frank exchange of views represents a time gone by- when the site was vital. Perhaps we are the last of an eddying backwater, after all...

[jb7]

An apolitical photograph is a worthless photograph, after all. Unless it's art. In which case, it's inherently worthless. Or, useless (after Oscar Wilde...)

Those who are easily offended should never post rubbish on youtube.

[David Karp]

I haven't read the next page, but I'd just like to mention that I am Sparatcus, too.

Gudmundur, a frank exchange of views represents a time gone by- when the site was vital. Perhaps we are the last of an eddying backwater, after all...

I think frank exchanges of views happen all the time on this forum. No problem unless people fail to treat others with respect, or stray into the political. There are plenty of places to go for the latter. Not too many places where talented and knowledgeable people can get together to discuss and help each other in connection to their LF photography.

[goamules]

An apolitical photograph is a worthless photograph, after all. Unless it's art. In which case, it's inherently worthless. Or, useless (after Oscar Wilde...)

....

That is totally incorrect. Only people who's minds are constantly wringing about politics, see politics in everything. Others see other things like beauty, life, mortality, work, ambition, recreation, and a slew of human emotions and traits. Politics is about criticizing people that don't believe what you believe, and power. Photography can be used, and I do mean used, for political agendas. But I prefer photography that is the other, purer purpose.

http://dig.henryart.org/photography-and-video/assets/artwork-images/200651_Kasebier_b.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only rule being whined about here is Thou Shalt Not Discuss Politics. Again, and unceasingly, why do we have to listen to anyone's political beliefs on a photography site? People that only want to discuss politics will do it here on an LF board, and on their Facebook pages, and commenting on other's FB pages, and invading other hobby sites, and protesting in front of meetings about this and the other thing. It's wearying, off tangent, and selfish, by nature.

Moderators: my vote is ANY time someone posts a "I'm whining because this forum is Sooooo bad now.....because I Caaaaannnn't talk about Pooollllitics...!!" you should just delete the post immediately. They are just stirring the pot, and they need to either get with the program, or LEAVE.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

The photograph above is high in political content. First it is sown by someone that is not the author without crediting Gertrude Käsebier. And secondly it looks to to be about the "subpression of women". This ought to be deleaded by the moderators if they want to be politicly correct.

[jp]

Gudmundur, it seems you are wanting to argue... I'll keep this informative.
You are not getting what Garrett (and many others) is choosing to focus on. Kasebeir's photo certainly commands attention, but you are missing what Garret wrote.
I like having a place on the Internet where political banter is left at the door.

[goamules]

Thanks JP, you get it. And Gudmundur fell for exactly what I was describing. Some see a beautiful photo. Others, like him, see any photo as a chance to get on a political soapbox. He should head to the sites that like that kind of switch-er-roo. I don't.

[Bignegative]

Thanks JP, you get it. And Gudmundur fell for exactly what I was describing. Some see a beautiful photo. Others, like him, see any photo as a chance to get on a political soapbox. He should head to the sites that like that kind of switch-er-roo. I don't.

But this make it seem you set him up to fail so can he leave the forums? Is this good favor to community members?

[Michael Graves]

The photograph above is high in political content. First it is sown by someone that is not the author without crediting Gertrude Käsebier. And secondly it looks to to be about the "subpression of women". This ought to be deleaded by the moderators if they want to be politicly correct.

First of all, I fully agree that the person who posted the photograph most definitely should have credited the original photography. Before Garret "sowed" it, perhaps he should have considered what he might have to reap. However, I see nothing in the image that suggests "subpression of women". Or even suppression for that matter. In my eye, it shows the beauty of an individual person, who happens to be a woman. If you think there is something oppressive about the image perhaps there is something in your own psyche that needs to be resolved. Lastly, although I do not know for certain this was a silver print, I'm sure it was a silver based negative. Therefore, I doubt the moderators can "delead" it.

[goamules]

Gundmundur, you need to get some help. There is a problem assigning evil intent and politics across the ages, then trying to "clean up" history and the world to your beliefs. I don't do things that way.

BigNegative, Give me a break, that photo is on millions of cards, websites, posters everywhere. If you don't know who did it, the photographer was Gertrude Käsebier, the Portrait of Miss N was taken 100 years ago, by the way. The artist died more than 70 years ago.

And I didn't "set up" anything. I was talking about the beauty of photos, as a righteous counter to talking politics on this forum, and the complainer made the photo political, ironically. Once done, he became a perfect example of the problem. Now you, Mr Big Negative, come in on your first post, trying to keep the politics going. You guys are sick, go find another place to drive your Complaintocracy (government by those who complain/protest the loudest).

Now, is this forum going to talk about photography? Or are we going to let a few continue to advocate discussion of politics?

Moderators: time for a lock.

[cowanw]

As for suppression of women and with regards to this portrait, Evelyn Nesbit was a popular model and chorus girl who parlayed her image into social success; a Gibson Girl, famous for being famous. Who was using whom at that time is open to debate, as Kasebier was a woman as well (if that means anything), and Nesbit had hundreds of her portraits done by most of the well known photographers of the time.
PS I don't believe Garret was claiming authorship, it's a very well known photograph. Y'all are picking nits.
PPS Gudmundur Ingolfsson may not have English as his first language
PPPS nevertheless to use the phrase "a division of the GESTAPO" in reference to this is sadly derogatory to god knows how many millions of people who died in the 12 years of 1933-1945

[Pfsor]

Moderators: my vote is ANY time someone posts a "I'm whining because this forum is Sooooo bad now.....because I Caaaaannnn't talk about Pooollllitics...!!" you should just delete the post immediately. .


And Gudmundur fell for exactly what I was describing. He should head to the sites that like that kind of switch-er-roo. I don't.


Now you, Mr Big Negative, come in on your first post, trying to keep the politics going. You guys are sick, go find another place to drive your Complaintocracy (government by those who complain/protest the loudest).


Wow! You, Mr goamules, are quite full of advice..!

[goamules]

Sure am! This forum is about PHOTOGRAPHY. Not whining about how hurt you are because of people telling you to shut up about politics.

[Pfsor]

Sure am! This forum is about PHOTOGRAPHY. Not whining about how hurt you are because of people telling you to shut up about politics.

Maybe, just maybe, before you tell someone to "shut up" calling them "sick" you should read the guidelines of this forum?

"not to abuse other site users - including posting offensive comments (like personal attacks or insulting language), sending them threats, unsolicited bulk email or commercial solicitations, or baiting/enticing them to violate forum guidelines."

Or maybe being unemotional is not just your thing.