I'm pretty much done here...

[Peter De Smidt]

Frank decided not to follow the rules, and he was banned because he continued to violate them, which, if you can take him at his word, he did on purpose, as he disagreed with the rules. If anything, the moderators gave him more leeway because of his prolific posting of on topic material over the years. I like Frank, and I wish he was still here and abiding by the rules, but saying that the moderators banned him because they didn't like him is ridiculous. Dealing with all of the issues surrounding the banning, which entailed spending a huge amount of time, exasperated Kirk, which is completely understandable.

[cosmicexplosion]

Eric, I think you are mistaken. I found Frank's political comments completely out of place on this bulletin board, eventually got fed up and started reporting them.

Thread drift is a fact of life but resurrecting old disagreements will get us nowhere. Better to address the points made in the lady's swan song than to reinforce them.

So it was you who ratted on frank that helped bring him down.
If that's the case you should commit forum hurry curry.

Or go join the police force working in civil disobedience

Seriously like him or not he was one of the most valuable members of the forum.

I have a beautiful 108 enlarger that I shipped from the states to Australia
Because of a link he made.
Just a link to a Craigslist.

How many people who killed him actually help people out

His posts where humerus
He was an old hat so had all the experience that newbies need
And he gave his time and lots of it.

Can you little beeachez honestly say you do any thing but hide in the shadows
Are the moderators really democratic

And as others have stated besides the forum for all things cute and friendly
It is a very well behaved forum
So as my post in the nude section proved its good to have a bit of controversy; now there is a section for critique.
Maybe what this forum needs is a section for every thing it banns

That way there can never be a problem
And people can fight it out in a virtual cage to the death.

As suggested do we want a forum where the whimpering moodiness of
Shy little mummy's boys run the show
Or do we become full spectrum
And offer art and craft
Hobbyist and professional
Losers and winners
All a place on the sun.

And I agree I have not read any thing by
Martyred one
That was worthy of death.

To tell the truth I would have thought
I was chopping block material.

Oh yeah
And when I joined this forum I was set on by the group mentality
Told to get a holga etc

So if any one wants to read my original post there are I'm sure people more worthy of assassination than said ghost.

That being said my first post was in some way designed to cause a stir
As my general personality is a bit that way.

Maybe that's why I'm an artist
Not to talk about me me me
But
A lot of artists rock the boat naturally

And it's z good thing.

Who wants to live in a repressive world.
So a lot of artist whilst extreme
Help create balance
Between the sheep and the wolves.

[Jay DeFehr]

No matter how interesting they are or how original their work, if members persist in violating forum guidelines they become a nuisance and take up moderator time. They get warned and eventually banned.

A nuisance to whom? The moderators, I presume. I didn't realize this forum existed for he pleasure or convenience of the volunteer moderators, though it seems more obviously so as time passes. Banning members of what can reasonably be described as an endangered species is a defeated strategy, if the goal is to maintain a membership, let alone increase one. It follows logically that the easiest group to moderate is one of former members. I think the moderators here, whatever their intentions, are not well versed in the dynamics of online fora, or the importance of arguing, and are more interested in the maintanence of cliques. The membership here need to decide what kind of forum they want, and before I'm needlessly reminded this is a privately owned site, I should add it needn't be this one. It's clear some members gravitate towards spirited debate and are willing to tolerate some rough behavior, while others, including the moderators would prefer a tea party, without raised voices or references to unsavory topics. I don't think we need less arguing, but better arguing; inclusion instead of exclusion, and moderators who are less strictly aligned with their core group clique. I think the moderation here is a fiasco, and will guarantee the demise of this forum if left unchecked.

Food for thought:


http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky...overnment.html

[rdenney]

Agree. Was there consultation between moderators or was it your decision alone Kirk?

Jon

There was much consultation, over a period of years, actually.

No action by one moderator cannot be undone by a consensus of the other moderators. In this case there was no second-guessing.

In the case of the returnee under an alias, Kirk was not involved in that action at all. That was discussed by several of us.

One thing that would benefit everyone is to remember that standards of civility do vary in different parts of the world. When I moved from Texas to Virginia, I found that easterners were much more plainspoken than southerners. In many ways, I found that refreshing--I always have a better notion of where I stand. But in some ways, it seems less polite, at least by southern standards. And those differences are quite small compared to, say, differences between Americans and Australians (I have always found Australians to be the most plainspoken of English speakers, but not always in ways other English speakers "get"), or English speakers and non-English speakers. Or between art types and engineer types, for that matter.

For this reason, it has always served me well to bring my thick skin to conversations on the Internet. After some reflection, I often realize that what sounded to me as a personal insult was really just someone speaking their mind in plain language.

From the moderator perspective, we usually wait for complaints. If someone's plain speech causes offense, we hear about it, and then go take a look for ourselves. Occasionally, we are already in the middle of the discussion and see it first, but usually we err on the side of inaction. That has actually allowed some people to believe that personal attacks and rudeness are allowed, when they are not. We do our best.

Careful writing does not imply careful reading. In this thread, one person stated to the OP that she should not let a few bad actors ruin her experience here, but his wording was interpreted by some as applying to the OP. That was not the case, it seemed to me, but when the fur is flying people rush through all the responses and sometime miss subtle cues.

So, the advice to spread the Valium around seems to me appropriate. I hope that Bernice does not leave, and have found her posts to be interesting and informative. I hope she will realize that some folks here are just crusty old farts that mean well even if they rub people raw. But it would be better if those crusty old farts would try to transcend their crust a bit and listen to themselves with other people's ears.

Rick "much ado about nothing, or is that much adieu about nothing" Denney

[rdenney]

A nuisance to whom? The moderators, I presume. I didn't realize this forum existed for he pleasure or convenience of the volunteer moderators, though it seems more obviously so as time passes. Banning members of what can reasonably be described as an endangered species is a defeated strategy, if the goal is to maintain a membership, let alone increase one

There is no doubt that those who have been banned caused more departures than arrivals, taken on the whole. And very, very few have been banned in any case (except for spammers). What drives people away is contentiousness for the sake of contentiousness, not for the sake of understanding and sharing.

No, the forum does not exist for the convenience of the moderators. The moderators routinely make decisions that let conversation and even debate go on despite that it is inconvenient to do so.

Rick "but there is a line, and everyone knows where it is" Denney

[rdenney]

So it was you who ratted on frank that helped bring him down.
If that's the case you should commit forum hurry curry.

Or go join the police force working in civil disobedience

Seriously like him or not he was one of the most valuable members of the forum.

This was as far as I got--sorry.

People build up a good-will account on a forum. The greater the balance in that account, the more it takes for them to become overdrawn. Some people make big deposits, but they also make big withdrawals.

Even so, those who go into the red usually just need to ask for a loan to get it. But sometimes they make it everyone else's fault that they made too many withdrawals.

Being liked and being a valuable contributor is enough to postpone action (and action in some cases had been discussed for years), but there is a line.

Rick "who misses him, too" Denney

[RichardSperry]

Thank you for the post and link, Jay.

[jnantz]

I too find this forum one of the nicer ones. If I could figure out a way to filter out the lounge it'd even be better.

Mike

mike -

just click on unified view
"Type: Posts; Excluded Forums: New Products, The Lounge, For Sale/Wanted; Posts From Last 30 Days"

john

[Jay DeFehr]

There is no doubt that those who have been banned caused more departures than arrivals, taken on the whole.

No doubt for whom? How are such accountings made? I think you've neglected to consider, among other things, why members stay, and why they participate, or not. What there can be no doubt of, is that contentious threads attract the most participation, and that should tell you more about the values of the membership than the complaints of a few vocal whiners.

[RichardSperry]

There is no doubt that those who have been banned caused more departures than arrivals

I doubt it. So there is doubt.

There were about four or five photographers, who are members or posters here, I had heard of before coming here. Frank was one of them.

Being liked and being a valuable contributor is enough to postpone action (and action in some cases had been discussed for years), but there is a line

All this statement does, is reinforce the notion that Kirk has held a personal or political grudge against Frank for years. And it came to head in some deleted or private email conversation between the two.