How to solve bickering

[cosmicexplosion]

There is a famous book in the u.s
Called getting to yes and another called crucial conversations.
Both expand on the idea of bring hard on the problem and soft on the person.

What is happening on this forum is either a lot of people arnt getting the attention they need from woman or art
Or they are just text book case scenarios.
I run with the later.
So when some one says something disagreeable slam that not the fragile egos of the individual.
You then give no cause for defence
Or offence.
You don't call a child an idiot for spilling milk you laugh and offer help.
So what I think has to happen is the forum must become a safe haven for people to be some what human and that means vulnerable, in order to get back an atmosphere of community and support. And flowers in our hair.
It can't happen with overt personal criticism.
I for one was attacked when I first joined
ANd i have dished it out and am definitely a work in progress
But being tough on the problem and soft on the person is really the only way forward. IMO

[Tim Meisburger]

good on ya mate!

[vinny]

yeah, it has been kinda nasty around here lately. Many of the same offenders, over and over. I wish there was an ignore button that would remove them completely (including username and posts) from my view. The "why did the moderators" threads, especially.

[welly]

It's only been nasty in "The lounge". Everywhere else is good. Don't worry about it too much.

[jp]

I very much agree with cosmicexplosion here but aren't as serious about it. The "dishing it out" language here is key. We're not nasty, but just "rough and tumble" like old guys being goofy at a bar or party without women around. Not young guys trying to get remembered by women, but older guys enjoying some freedom. For example, in mostly male company (such as commonly the case here), we'd really dish out the opinions about Cindy Sherman, and in mostly woman or well mixed company, we'd probably keep our mouth shut about what we think of Cindy Sherman. But being so forthright is very apt to fail in the electronic medium. It could make for good company in real life, but divide and upset us online.

[rdenney]

Here are some other principles to live by:

1. Do not say anything you would consider dangerous to say within arm's length of the hearer's balled fist.

2. Do not make any unqualified factual statement unless you personally know it to be true. If you are repeating what has been reported by others, then say so, etc.

3. Do not depend on professional credentials for credibility. Explain statements so that their validity stands on its own.

4. Enjoy humor, but remember that jokes at the expense of others cause damage.

5. Do not come to place you like and then try to change it to be more like the place you left because of its flaws.

6. The character flaws of people are never on-topic, but

7. The flaws of posts may be.

8. If someone complains about something you said, don't take it personally.

9. If you defend what you said or challenge what someone else said, don't make it personal.

10. What you say defines who you are in a text-based forum. Are you who your posts make you out to be?

Edit: 10 Corollary: Write posts that would not embarass you if persons you admired and respected, or to whom you must be answerable, read them every day.

11. When the zombie invasion comes, friendships will have value. Hortatorical opinions will not.

12. Moderators are the same flawed individuals as the rest of a forum, except that someone has to hold the gavel, however imperfectly wielded.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[Winger]

I agree with Rick (especially #11).

I very much agree with cosmicexplosion here but aren't as serious about it. The "dishing it out" language here is key. We're not nasty, but just "rough and tumble" like old guys being goofy at a bar or party without women around. Not young guys trying to get remembered by women, but older guys enjoying some freedom. For example, in mostly male company (such as commonly the case here), we'd really dish out the opinions about Cindy Sherman, and in mostly woman or well mixed company, we'd probably keep our mouth shut about what we think of Cindy Sherman. But being so forthright is very apt to fail in the electronic medium. It could make for good company in real life, but divide and upset us online.

But remember that while not that many women post in these threads, there are at least a few of us reading them. And likely rolling their eyes.

[dwross]

I agree with Rick (especially #11).
But remember that while not that many women post in these threads, there are at least a few of us reading them. And likely rolling their eyes.

+1.

I'm not in general an 'eye roller', but I can get sad/aggravated at the gender bias here. There may be as many women as men interested in LF these days. LF is for the patient, and if I can be excused my own gender bias, ...

That said, blessings on all the great guys here who don't have a misogynous bone in their bodies, and +infinity for all attempts to keep this a civil place, rich in real photography -- both the art and the science.

a female LF photographer

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

yeah, it has been kinda nasty around here lately. Many of the same offenders, over and over. I wish there was an ignore button that would remove them completely (including username and posts) from my view. The "why did the moderators" threads, especially.

I think too many folks that post assume that they are not one of the "offenders".

[jp]

+1.
There may be as many women as men interested in LF these days.

a female LF photographer

Indeed. I was at a LF-oriented workshop last year and it was about half women. Local DSLR photography is very much the realm of women.