No disagreement allowed

[Godfrey]

I see some over-eager moderator has disallowed my posting without "moderator review" after I disagreed with him. It wasn't a big deal, it was just a point of view, and there were no nasty words or whatever associated.

I guess disagreement with a moderator's point of view is not allowed.

Well, if you don't want me to converse here any more, why not just say so, publicly? I'll be happy to go away. But I'm not going to pretend that I can have a conversation if every post I make is moderated by some guy who can't take a disagreement.

G

 

[splitimageview]

G,

I want to address this directly and clearly, because there seems to be a misunderstanding about what’s happened and why.

First, moderation here is not based on whether someone agrees or disagrees with a moderator’s opinion. Disagreement is normal, expected, and entirely allowed on this forum. Many members — including moderators — disagree with one another regularly without any issue.

As is clear to anyone who reads the thread, what's interesting is there was actually no disagreement. I suggest you re-read the posts in question.

The reason your account was placed into post-review mode is not the position you took, but the tone and escalation of your replies. Phrases like “crappy videos,” repeated dismissiveness toward other members’ input, and the closing “I no longer care” move the discussion away from technical disagreement and toward personal friction. When a thread starts heading in that direction, standard procedure is to apply a short cool-down so things don’t spiral further.

Post-review is not a punishment, a silencing tactic, or a statement about your value as a contributor. It is a temporary measure used consistently when discussions become heated or emotionally charged, regardless of who is involved. It gives everyone — moderators included — space to reset and keeps the forum usable for the broader membership.

No one is asking you to “pretend” or to leave. You are welcome to continue participating, expressing your views, and disagreeing — just without framing that escalates or shuts down discussion. Once things settle, the review flag is lifted as a matter of course.

If you’d like to discuss this further, please do so privately rather than in-thread. Public accusations of bias tend to inflame situations rather than resolve them, and that’s exactly what moderation is meant to avoid.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Now we can get the discussion back to the technical merits of the topic.

 

[Godfrey]

@splitimageview :: No. You voiced disagreement with me after each of my posts, including posting those "poor quality" (aka: "crappy" in common US English usage) videos in an attempt to prove your righteous point of view. No one else expressed any notions that what I said was disruptive, incorrect, or out of line. You are the only person who seemed to be aggrieved, presumably by my disagreeing with you.

I find the BS you posted in response too condescending and annoying to be worth spending time on. I have better things to do than to waste my time on this forum if that's the way you feel about it, as representive of the forum administration and owner.

I do not give you permission to moderate/edit my every post in an attempt to train me. Not now, not ever. Period. I will no longer post to this forum at all. I hope your "things" settle. I don't care. Yes, that's dismissive ... intentionally.

So consider this as my way of saying a permanent "So long: Wish it had been great to know you, but, eh, I guess not." So long RFF ... I'll miss a couple of the interesting folks with whom I have had a lot of interesting discussions. But not enough to warrant this attitude by an admin.

Most of the people I care about already follow me on other forums and socials anyway: we'll continue our discussions there happily.

G

 

[CameraQuest]

Moderators have a very difficult task. Add to that any action will both offend and satisfy someone.
Balancing different views and satisfying everyone is quite simply impossible.

Moderators are volunteers. Mods spend time and effort to help keep RFF on an even keel, all the time knowing someone somewhere inevitably will disagree.
Ironically the number of moderator critics seems to far out number those volunteering to be a moderator.

As your post and your followup were allowed the "No Disagreement Allowed" title is inaccurate.

Godfrey, I like your take on photography. RFF will be a better place if you stay around, just give mods the benefit of the doubt to perform their tasks.

Stephen

 

[splitimageview]

G,

For the record, there was no substantive disagreement in the thread — something anyone reading it carefully can see for themselves. Moderation was not triggered by opposing views, but by tone and escalation.

We encourage members to read threads in full and avoid assuming personal intent where none is present. Temporary post-review is a standard, procedural cool-down used when discussions begin to harden rather than remain constructive. This post-review was removed quickly, as you know.

If you choose to step away, that is of course your decision. No further action is required.

 

[Godfrey]

Thank you for responding.

@Stephen: I have been on this forum for many years now. I feel it's obvious that I value it, and laud you for starting and maintaining it.

Perhaps you could imbue the moderators with a sense for dealing with problems in, how can I put it, a more civil manner? For instance, on the three forae that I manage and support, if there's a spat (and there always are...), as admin I contact and talk with the people in conflict before taking any other action. I don't just put them on a "review-post" mode without informing them of consequences to what I see happening. That's what I consider civility and courtesy, a sensible interaction with forum participants.

Regards your notion that 'there are many critics of moderators, but few volunteers' well, hmm: I haven't seen any posts on the forum looking for people to become moderators. What I have done on my other forums, when I didn't have time to do the whole job, was post a note asking for some assistance, for a limited term. The limited term is important ... ask someone to be a volunteer for a few months, they get to learn the process and how to moderate sensibly, and if they find they like it, then they can ask to stay on or be backup whenever the load gets too heavy. And it builds a community of people who you know CAN help out over time, when you need them.

Of course, you know these things. I'm just talking out the thoughts that come to mind.

More importantly, thank you for the compliment and encouragement. I'll stick around, although I may reduce the amount of time I put in and number of posts I make. We'll see how it works out. I've got a lot planned for 2026 and am excited to get rolling on those plans.

best,
G

 

[dourbalistar]

Thank you for responding.

@Stephen: I have been on this forum for many years now. I feel it's obvious that I value it, and laud you for starting and maintaining it.

Perhaps you could imbue the moderators with a sense for dealing with problems in, how can I put it, a more civil manner? For instance, on the three forae that I manage and support, if there's a spat (and there always are...), as admin I contact and talk with the people in conflict before taking any other action. I don't just put them on a "review-post" mode without informing them of consequences to what I see happening. That's what I consider civility and courtesy, a sensible interaction with forum participants.

Regards your notion that 'there are many critics of moderators, but few volunteers' well, hmm: I haven't seen any posts on the forum looking for people to become moderators. What I have done on my other forums, when I didn't have time to do the whole job, was post a note asking for some assistance, for a limited term. The limited term is important ... ask someone to be a volunteer for a few months, they get to learn the process and how to moderate sensibly, and if they find they like it, then they can ask to stay on or be backup whenever the load gets too heavy. And it builds a community of people who you know CAN help out over time, when you need them.

Of course, you know these things. I'm just talking out the thoughts that come to mind.

More importantly, thank you for the compliment and encouragement. I'll stick around, although I may reduce the amount of time I put in and number of posts I make. We'll see how it works out. I've got a lot planned for 2026 and am excited to get rolling on those plans.

best,
G

I'm glad you decided to stick around, you have a lot of knowledge and experience to share. We also both live in Silly Valley, and I enjoy your local photos. As an aside and with all humility, there was a post just a few months ago looking for more moderators.

 

[Archiver]

Years ago, I was moderator of a few non-photography discussion forums which were occasionally visited by trolls and grumpyguts. I ruled with an iron fist on the whole, and ejected members quickly and publicly if they became belligerent. If it was a poster of long and positive history, I'd have private conversations with them to get them to tone things down. It's a job that I would not take up again, and I thank the few RFF moderators for their general evenhandedness.

 

[splitimageview]

G,

Thank you for sharing your perspective — it’s appreciated.

As someone who manages other forums, you’ll appreciate that the use of post-review is part of a broader de-escalation policy. The intent is to contain moments of rising friction before they spill into other threads or become larger issues to unwind later. It’s a deliberately light-touch, temporary pause grounded in long-standing moderation practice on this and other larger forums.

In this case, it worked exactly as intended: the temperature came down, the conversation reset, and we’re now back to a calm and constructive footing — which is always the goal.

To make this clearer going forward, the forum will publish a brief outline of the policy so members understand how, why, and when it is used.

We’re glad you’ll be sticking around, and the staff appreciates the constructive tone you’ve brought back to the exchange.

 

[splitimageview]

Posted: Forum Policy Update

 

[WoodallP]

More importantly, thank you for the compliment and encouragement. I'll stick around, although I may reduce the amount of time I put in and number of posts I make. We'll see how it works out. I've got a lot planned for 2026 and am excited to get rolling on those plans.

best,
G

Thanks for sticking around G, though every time I go window shopping for the Pentax 43mm LTM on eBay I curse you for what you may eventually do to my wallet!

 

[Godfrey]

Posted: Forum Policy Update

To be quite frank and open about it, the public announcement of a covert thought control program run by the moderators disinclines me to participate further on this forum than anything else could.

G

 

[sojournerphoto]

To be quite frank and open about it, the public announcement of a covert thought control program run by the moderators disinclines me to participate further on this forum than anything else could.

G

Godfrey, rff is better for your presence. Please stick around and let normal service resume.

I haven’t seen and won’t be looking for the contention, so nothing to say on the matter beyond that.

 

[splitimageview]

There is no “thought control” involved, covert or otherwise. The policy that was published simply documents moderation practices that have long been in use to manage tone and escalation, not viewpoints or opinions.

If you choose not to participate under those conditions, that is entirely your decision.

This matter is now closed.

 

[chuckroast]

There is no “thought control” involved, covert or otherwise. The policy that was published simply documents moderation practices that have long been in use to manage tone and escalation, not viewpoints or opinions.

If you choose not to participate under those conditions, that is entirely your decision.

This matter is now closed.

I have a simple rubrick for this:

It is thought control if a viewpoint is being supressed or edited.

It is not thought control if the mods are enforcing civility in the discussion.

Tone matters. My own test is if I would say something the way I say it to my spouse, boss, or minister.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I have a simple rubrick for this:

It is thought control if a viewpoint is being supressed or edited.

It is not thought control if the mods are enforcing civility in the discussion.

Tone matters. My own test is if I would say something the way I say it to my spouse, boss, or minister.

Unfortunately, this is not an "either/or", but rather a situation where enforcing civility shades off all too easily into suppression of ideas, and the suppression is justified in the interest of civility. I've watched it happen, and it's offensive to me and should be to anyone who values the respectful exchange of possibly controversial ideas. We are not children, here.