Helen Hill finally says Ciao ... it's been Fun

[p.giannakis]

I think the ban system needs changing - being a "one man operation" places a lot of pressure on mods. Wouldn't it be better if a specific post would be flagged up by other users and if it was reported an X amount of times, this would give the mods the authority to ban the user for an X amount of days?

 

[Paul T.]

A note of Thanks to ALL, time for me to move on for Good
Lots will be Happy, Lots will be Sad 😉

Putting it in writing and sharing so no silly gossip ensues...

Sent this to Stephen today...

"Funny You Can ban Huss ... a good contributor overall
and Ko.fe too
But keep Bart Bart an out right racist
who is selling his gear today in the classifieds
and Suggest bringing back Ned who can be quite rude and not nice to women (me in particular)

I will respect your decisions , this is your site and You know what’s best for your business ...


Time for me to move on happily
This time for good ~

Have lost respect for You.

Cheers & Best ~ Helen"
__________________

Is the man who said that the Germans were forced into World War 2 by Jews and Left Wingers really still in the forum?

Someone please tell me it isn't true.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Is the man who said that the Germans were forced into World War 2 by Jews and Left Wingers really still in the forum?

Someone please tell me it isn't true.

It isn't true. As Stephen stated, Bart Bart is banned.

Also, Huss's and KoFe's bans are for one month i.e. NOT permanent. They can choose to come back after the month expires.

 

[BernardL]

After reading through 3+ pages of this thread, I am still missing a clear statement by the chief mod, for respectively Huss and Ko.Fe:
- which specific rule was broken
- which specific offending statement broke that rule

Such statement would have an educative (dissuasive?) value for the rest of the populace, and also dispel any thoughts of arbitrariness.

At least, this helps me realize I should spend less time on forums and more time with my cameras and enlarger.

 

[fireblade]

Helen ??? 😱

 

[Henry]

I think the ban system needs changing - being a "one man operation" places a lot of pressure on mods. Wouldn't it be better if a specific post would be flagged up by other users and if it was reported an X amount of times, this would give the mods the authority to ban the user for an X amount of days?

I'm not going to comment on members coming or going, or personal relationships here, that seems beyond my level of understanding here, but I will speak to this post.

That system is pretty common on online video game systems and it is extremely easy to abuse. That's where "brigading" as a concept came in (not from, though, it's an older idea than that). You might argue that on a small forum like this it would be less of an issue, but really it just reduces the number of people needed to form the brigade.

My main feeling is that I don't want this forum to become too much like reddit (which has a massive issue with under-moderation).

Many other forums like this one keep mod-action under the radar (bans aren't public unless specifically discussed by mods) and that isn't usually a huge issue. Flyertalk is an example of a forum run that way.

I'm not arguing for or agains this mod action (I don't know what happened, I don't know the people involved, I am fairly certain that the posts in question have been removed anyway), I'm arguing that having involved present moderators and admins is a huge boon.

 

[Henry]

All the above said. Still: I will miss those who go, and hope that you will give it another chance. This is a tough year, so I get it though. Be well, we'll miss you.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

So much handwringing, yet AFAIK no permanent bans have been issued.
I usually enjoy reading the informative posts by the affected members.
Hopefully they'll be back.

I'm a staunch supporter of democracy, but no online forum I know is one.
I was once a member of a photo forum that tried to be one,
but it dissolved into anarchy and was gone within a few months.

Like others I too have committed a few transgressions on RFF.
Only once or maybe twice were my actions questioned.
As these things go Stephen is quite fair, very hands-off and not heavy-handed.
Other forums I participate in have far more activist moderation teams.

Though I am quite opinionated I try to avoid the most controversial threads.
I missed this last dustup. When mudslinging starts I find another thread that interests me.

The Ignore List is a powerful and often useful feature.
I too like a good debate but when a fellow member becomes offensive I may use it temporarily.
I wonder if its judicious use by the affected members might have avoided all this grief...

Chris

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I think the ban system needs changing - being a "one man operation" places a lot of pressure on mods. Wouldn't it be better if a specific post would be flagged up by other users and if it was reported an X amount of times, this would give the mods the authority to ban the user for an X amount of days?

I disagree with you.

I have the utmost respect for the administrators and moderators of this forum. They do an outstanding job. If I was temporarily banned I'd probably know why and I'd respect the decision. Sometimes a time out is a good thing.

If a member wants to bail out for whatever reason it's an individual choice and should be respected. Good bye, sad to see you go, maybe someday we'll meet again. So on and so forth.

Anyway, it's the head bartenders show to run as he sees fit. Take it or leave it. I for one respect him. End of story.

All the best
Mike

 

[retinax]

Note to Stephen: your site could set itself above others on the web if you insisted that all users use their real name. Anonymity on the web seems to give a lot of people license to be rude or worse. When people are a bit more exposed by using their real name, I expect they will think twice before turning to ill behavior.

The two members who were banned use their real name, just not in full length.
The forum would lose half its members, not everyone is ok with being googleable in a non-professisional capacity.

 

[leicapixie]

I woke up this morning to see pages on Helen Hill's departure, that saddens me..I believe in free speech, but Ko-Fe, Huss and myself have been locked out for a period because we did not drink the Leica Lemonade!.
I left Photo-forum because of the extreme rudeness and personal attacks.

Ko-Fe because of 2nd (or 3rd,4th,5th) language appears rude but it's simply being a little brutal or brusque. I make awful grammar mistakes and use words differently, because my birthplace had other official languages incl. English..Words are not same in English English. Americans and Canadians speak a new English,basically "American".

Helen I have simply loved your postings, your photos which at first i did not like or appreciate, being so different to my snaps..
All the best and hopefully not as moderator, you will still post..I am in trouble at Flicker...

 

[peterm1]

Is the man who said that the Germans were forced into World War 2 by Jews and Left Wingers really still in the forum?

Someone please tell me it isn't true.

Paul I have to say I do not agree with you on this. I am a Jew on both my mother and father's side and naturally disagree with everything that guy thought and stood for. I recall the thread in question and was shocked at exactly what he was saying. But I cannot say that I am OK with banning people merely for having egregious views. I think its a different matter however if someone is banned for being relentlessly abusive towards others (other than a one time incident of overly heated words in a post). That is an entirely different matter and justifies banning.
I happen to think that there is far too much banning of people in the world today for their thoughts - even if some of those views are outright horrid. The world has become suddenly censorious and rather ugly. But freedom to think is important (it should not even need to be said) and without freedom to think people are not really people at all. But the price for this is that some will hold ugly views. The antidote for that is debate not silencing. Of this I am convinced. It is easy for everyone to look at a Nazi (I mean a real Nazi - not what everyone calls a Nazi today which is anyone who disagrees with the person making the judgment) and agree that their views are disgusting. But the above is just the problem where do we stop banning people and are we just banning them because we disagree with something about them? Do we start banning them because they hold the "wrong" views on religion. Or the "wrong" views on sexuality. And ultimately does this not run the risk of ending up in the same place as the actual Nazis - punishing people because they come from the "wrong" race? We are already seeing this kind of stuff happen in society right now - today.

 

[tightsqueez]

Paul I have to say I do not agree with you on this. I am a Jew on both my mother and father's side and naturally disagree with everything that guy thought and stood for. I recall the thread in question and was shocked at exactly what he was saying. But I cannot say that I am OK with banning people merely for having egregious views. I think its a different matter however if someone is banned for being relentlessly abusive towards others (other than a one time incident of overly heated words in a post). That is an entirely different matter and justifies banning.
I happen to think that there is far too much banning of people in the world today for their thoughts - even if some of those views are outright horrid. The world has become suddenly censorious and rather ugly. But freedom to think is important (it should not even need to be said) and without freedom to think people are not really people at all. But the price for this is that some will hold ugly views. The antidote for that is debate not silencing. Of this I am convinced. It is easy for everyone to look at a Nazi (I mean a real Nazi - not what everyone calls a Nazi today which is anyone who disagrees with the person making the judgment) and agree that their views are disgusting. But the above is just the problem where do we stop banning people and are we just banning them because we disagree with something about them? Do we start banning them because they hold the "wrong" views on religion. Or the "wrong" views on sexuality. And ultimately does this not run the risk of ending up in the same place as the actual Nazis - punishing people because they come from the "wrong" race? We are already seeing this kind of stuff happen in society right now - today.

Very good point. Irritability threshold for people is ultra low with this pandemic, and it's definitely rearing its head on RFF.

 

[Cyriljay]

I was absent here for sometimes taking a brake from all my activitis from Social medias and forums. My visit today got in to this post and it is a bad and a sad news.
Read the whole story and find out it is your right to move on and I am sure ,Helen you wll be happier ever after to keep on shooting more photos with your cameras than hanging around with forums. I also like to be in that mode and it gives more opportinities to be more productive. Good luck in your next steps.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Paul I have to say I do not agree with you on this. I am a Jew on both my mother and father's side and naturally disagree with everything that guy thought and stood for. I recall the thread in question and was shocked at exactly what he was saying. But I cannot say that I am OK with banning people merely for having egregious views. I think its a different matter however if someone is banned for being relentlessly abusive towards others (other than a one time incident of overly heated words in a post). That is an entirely different matter and justifies banning.
I happen to think that there is far too much banning of people in the world today for their thoughts - even if some of those views are outright horrid. The world has become suddenly censorious and rather ugly. But freedom to think is important (it should not even need to be said) and without freedom to think people are not really people at all. But the price for this is that some will hold ugly views. The antidote for that is debate not silencing. Of this I am convinced. It is easy for everyone to look at a Nazi (I mean a real Nazi - not what everyone calls a Nazi today which is anyone who disagrees with the person making the judgment) and agree that their views are disgusting. But the above is just the problem where do we stop banning people and are we just banning them because we disagree with something about them? Do we start banning them because they hold the "wrong" views on religion. Or the "wrong" views on sexuality. And ultimately does this not run the risk of ending up in the same place as the actual Nazis - punishing people because they come from the "wrong" race? We are already seeing this kind of stuff happen in society right now - today.

Well stated, and I’d say that this is not only true, but dangerous for any society to ignore. Like ours is doing now. As regards forums, banning for being abusive to other members is appropriate (if only we knew as a society what “abusive”means), but banning people for their views is not only historically a bad idea, it’s counterproductive. You want more “hate” in the world, just start ostracizing people. Banning, canceling, deplatforming people for their views is nothing more than book burning, it’s solely a mob tactic, and it’s intellectually indefensible.
The solution to horrible ideas is more speech, not less. Though there will always be horrible ideas. For that problem there’s the ignore button. What a lovely thing. Use it instead of being a Karen. Guaranteed to lower blood pressure by 20 points if used often enough.

Now, there can be a overheated argument about this.

 

[mcfingon]

I'll miss your unique contributions very much Helen, and I hope whatever you do works out well for you. As my consolation, I can look forward to seeing more from Huss and Ko.Fe. when they return.
John Mc

 

[splitimageview]

I think the ban system needs changing - being a "one man operation" places a lot of pressure on mods. Wouldn't it be better if a specific post would be flagged up by other users and if it was reported an X amount of times, this would give the mods the authority to ban the user for an X amount of days?

I disagree with you.

I have the utmost respect for the administrators and moderators of this forum. They do an outstanding job. If I was temporarily banned I'd probably know why and I'd respect the decision. Sometimes a time out is a good thing.

If a member wants to bail out for whatever reason it's an individual choice and should be respected. Good bye, sad to see you go, maybe someday we'll meet again. So on and so forth.

Anyway, it's the head bartenders show to run as he sees fit. Take it or leave it. I for one respect him. End of story.

All the best
Mike

The exclamation point icon at the bottom left of each post is a report button.

If there are problematic posts, readers should use this button to report the post to the mods.

Perhaps future discipline could be discussed among mods prior to action being taken. (Maybe this is exactly what transpired, of course.)

There are obvious permanent bans that require no discussion (spammers, etc.) but for long term prolific contributors such as the two members in question here, perhaps an internal discussion among mods (or, if not mods, perhaps a small panel of long-time trusted members) should be performed before any action is taken.

This discussion could be easily done on a private forum only visible to the mods and/or the trusted member group.

Also, before any action is taken, maybe a private conversation with the individual members would be appropriate. (This too may have been exactly what happened.)

Also, a 30 day ban seems rather excessive here with regards to these two; perhaps just put the offenders on moderate status for a time, so new posts must be approved before they appear in public?

A 30 day ban may end up being a permanent ban, as they may decide to just never come back.

 

[fti]

Well stated, and I’d say that this is not only true, but dangerous for any society to ignore. Like ours is doing now. As regards forums, banning for being abusive to other members is appropriate (if only we knew as a society what “abusive”means), but banning people for their views is not only historically a bad idea, it’s counterproductive. You want more “hate” in the world, just start ostracizing people. Banning, canceling, deplatforming people for their views is nothing more than book burning, it’s solely a mob tactic, and it’s intellectually indefensible.
The solution to horrible ideas is more speech, not less. Though there will always be horrible ideas. For that problem there’s the ignore button. What a lovely thing. Use it instead of being a Karen. Guaranteed to lower blood pressure by 20 points if used often enough.

Now, there can be a overheated argument about this.

Am sad to hear about Helen & Huss. As an frequent visitor infrequent poster, I thoroughly enjoy(ed) their contributions. But that goes for many of you! So my thanks to you guys as well.

I am always happy to see the voice of reason. I fully agree with you guys on this. It also helps to explain why I still have some relatives as my FB friends despite their insistence on fewer Covid-19 test being somehow better and hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theories.

 

[rhl-oregon]

A lotus for Helen

—and anyone else who forgets in their eyes and heart why we are here

 

[coogee]

It seems very unfair to reward this enormously passive aggressive behaviour in such a one sided manner. Surely it’s better to have a more adult and more discreet discussion if there is disagreement. It’s all so narcissistic. I don’t go around in real life telling people I won’t be speaking to them ever again, I just don’t speak to them if that is the get go.
I’m embarrassed for all these ‘shining light’ type posts. Get a grip!