Forum Change Announcement

[ASRafferty]

Look at Don's past posts in the Lounge. Posts containing information about discussions I had with my subscribers, posts saying "go masturbate somewhere else", posts using foul language to attack me... seriously, if he was banned from the lounge, it would still be there today. He is the one that ruined it for everyone. No, I'm not perfect and I regret saying things that I did sometimes, but I never went after someone the way this guy went after me.

I don't care about any of that. What I care about is whether you are actually reporting what the moderators discussed in making this decision. You imply that you know things the rest of us don't and have some sort of leverage from which to threaten Don. If you've acquired some status with the moderating team, I want to know it, and everyone is entitled to.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I don't care about any of that. What I care about is whether you are actually reporting what the moderators discussed in making this decision. You imply that you know things the rest of us don't and have some sort of leverage from which to threaten Don. If you've acquired some status with the moderating team, I want to know it, and everyone is entitled to.

Before Don Hutton, David Pyke, SaveBears and KevKurry made their way into the Lounge, I was having normal discussions with dozens of people and there were no problems in the lounge. If someone felt what I was saying was over the line, I've been PM'd by them stating so and apologized, but I never went after ANYONE. I did not imply I was a moderator, but I did warn everyone to stop their personal attacks on me or they'd risk losing the Lounge. I warned everyone because of a very brief discussion I had with a moderator who implied such. That moderator told me that they were not happy at all with what was going on and were looking at some changes. To me, that was enough to warn everyone to stop their personal attacks. They didn't and look what happened. Dozens of people lost out because of the actions of a few.

[ASRafferty]

I did not imply I was a moderator, but I did warn everyone to stop their personal attacks on me or they'd risk losing the Lounge. I warned everyone because of a very brief discussion I had with a moderator who implied such. That moderator told me that they were not happy at all with what was going on and were looking at some changes. To me, that was enough to warn everyone to stop their personal attacks. They didn't and look what happened.

I see. Well, all due respect, but I think I'll wait to see if any of the actual moderators can clarify the extent to which you're entitled to issue warnings on their behalf. Lots of us communicate with them for lots of reasons, and I would want to know exactly where what I say to them goes, before I say it.

[QT Luong]

Don, watch how you speak to me. You were one of the primary reasons the Lounge was changed because of your unacceptable personal attacks on me.

Not as far as I am aware. Don Hutton's statement on the forum mission and how the forum topics relate to large format photography is basically correct. The forum was never intended for people with little knowledge or interest in large format photography to come and discuss politics and current events.

[David Pyke]

Before Don Hutton, David Pyke, SaveBears and KevKurry made their way into the Lounge, I was having normal discussions with dozens of people and there were no problems in the lounge.

Yep, discussions about how people don't get their subscriptions and how you lose photographer's portfolios.

Ahhh, the good old days!

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW, David is referring to a rather general statement I made to him a few weeks ago. I said simply that "We are not happy about allot of what is going on and are looking at some changes. That is all I can say right now." Any belief that this had to do with the actions of specific people are entirely assumptions on David's part and do not come from any statement that I made or implied.

[ASRafferty]

FWIW, David is referring to a rather general statement I made to him a few weeks ago. I said simply that "We are not happy about allot of what is going on and are looking at some changes. That is all I can say right now." Any belief that this had to do with the actions of specific people are entirely assumptions on David's part and do not come from any statement that I made or implied.

Thank you, Kirk... trust in the moderators' judgment is crucially important, and it's good to be able to tell the difference between the "truly anointed" and the "self-anointed"!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Yep, discussions about how people don't get their subscriptions and how you lose photographer's portfolios.

Ahhh, the good old days!

You see, this is what I'm talking about. How do you moderators ban intelligent discussion, but allow this drivel?

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I'm looking for some waterfall pics. I don't know what you're all arguing about.

[Marko]

If we follow the logic of the moderators other topics to be banned should be digital vs silver, anything related to pyro, and all other issues where we witnessed the darkest recesses of the mind of some members come through.
But this hardly would be a fruitful decision, because we are not acting on the root of the cause, which is the person who acts out the beahviour but merely on the symptom, so to speak.
The reason I insists on this is exactly the same Geary explained: I feel offended and deprived of very valuable information, offered mainly by Donald Miller that I wouldn't have the time and the will to research.

If we follow that logic, no topic is safe because this is not an action to eliminate offending behaviour but simply a reaction that tries to deny the ground for it.

One need not look beyond this thread to realize that banning The Lounge solved precisely nothing. Judging by the semi-lynching atmosphere already building up, I have a distinct feeling that next will come an attempt to ban offensive behaviour by banning certain people and I'm afraid that that will be those who attract such behaviour rather than those who commit it.

I very rarely agree with David Spivack on just about anything, and mostly with reason, but this is one of such moments. As far as I am concerned, this is going to be a test case of protecting interests of all by protecting the least popular and liked among us.