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

[Dogman]

A question to responders to my comment above: Why would anyone have a problem being recognized on the web if all their posts were thoughtful and unhurtful?? The internet is pushing many of us toward abusive behavior. Somehow this trend needs to be reined in.

I personally would like a little semblance of privacy in my life. I'm not a "public figure". There's already more about me available through Google than I'm comfortable with.

I agree that abusive behavior needs to be controlled but those who display this kind of behavior are already prone to it. I don't think the internet is pushing anyone.

And concerning free speech, yes, I'm all for the rights of people to be able to speak freely about their opinions. However, if you come to my house I'm more than likely going to set some ground rules over what people say under my roof. My house, my rules. I feel like I'm visiting in someone's house when I go to a forum and it's my responsibility to follow their rules. It's just good manners.

 

[ellisson]

This is a photography forum, mainly concerned with the art and science of photography. It is not first and foremost a political website.

There are rules that are made to keep the dialog topical and respectful.

What people believe apart from art and photography is mainly their own business. Proselytizing, (unless about some photography issue) for one's own beliefs I would not consider welcome on this website.

People's beliefs and politics are not purely rational, not generally amenable to persuasion and dialectic. They may change over time, but not likely by discussion on a website.

The rules are the rules. I see nothing in them that begs for change.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

As to "Frank." When I first read references to "Frank" I wondered, "Frank who." I couldn't place it, nor did I see what it had to do with the matter at hand. Then later I saw "Petronio." Wasn't he the one who posted quite a few pictures of women, rather anorexic looking, confined to standing on elevated places barely large enough for their feet? And if I'm remembering right, one of them had self-inflicted cuts on her left arm. Is that who Frank Petronio is?

Yes.
Phil Forrest

 

[retinax]

I commend your belief in the good in people, Larry. And I agree that we should be able to live with some conflict. And I keep trying to convince people like that with arguments as well. However to my knowledge, it is very rare that closed belief systems are changed by arguments. The benefit of taking the arguments on is more in that on might convince some onlookers. And there are limits to what a community like this can survive. So while I agree with you in principle, and that is absolutely how it should work in the public sphere as a whole, I would put some emphasis on keeping this community focused on its common topic. That's a valid goal, we don't have to do it all here. And the practical side of it, that Stephen certainly needs the forum to remain civil, also remains.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I commend your belief in the good in people, Larry. And I agree that we should be able to live with some conflict. And I keep trying to convince people like that with arguments as well. However to my knowledge, it is very rare that closed belief systems are changed by arguments. The benefit of taking the arguments on is more in that on might convince some onlookers. And there are limits to what a community like this can survive. So while I agree with you in principle, and that is absolutely how it should work in the public sphere as a whole, I would put some emphasis on keeping this community focused on its common topic. That's a valid goal, we don't have to do it all here. And the practical side of it, that Stephen certainly needs the forum to remain civil, also remains.

I’d agree with all of that, and what everyone else has said after I posted what I did. Mostly.
My point wasn’t about photography forums, this one in particular, but was more general, just asking people to think about, for themselves, whether shoving people out, pushing them into the company of only those people who agree with them, by “banning” them is a good idea, and advances the goal we might be trying to advance, which seems to be a more civil society, or, even, just a more civil photo forum.

There is this “ it is very rare that closed belief systems are changed by arguments.”

And a bit earlier there was this, “ It is also unlikely that anyone really changes their beliefs.”

Although agreeing with the qualifiers “very rare” and “unlikely”, I would just ask, or wonder, if there isn’t anyone here with a somewhat checkered past, who is now a better person simply because someone else, against all odds, chose not to give up on him? People are capable of learning, we shouldn’t write them off. Not that I haven’t done that myself. It’s easier.

Anyway, I hope someone gets the larger point I was trying to make.
I am pretty much off topic now, so will leave it alone going forward.
Still hoping that Helen comes back, even though she obviously would not agree with me on any of this. That’s okay.

 

[JeffS7444]

I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about: The OP has left a link to her Flickr site and shared her email address, the "bad guys" appear to have been banned, while the wrongfully suspended (? I don't know and don't need to know why) are active enough elsewhere, so no one need be without. But if anyone's the life and soul of RFF, it's the Head Bartender.

 

[astrosecret]

I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about: The OP has left a link to her Flickr site and shared her email address, the "bad guys" appear to have been banned, while the wrongfully suspended (? I don't know and don't need to know why) are active enough elsewhere, so no one need be without. But if anyone's the life and soul of RFF, it's the Head Bartender.

Ego. one can just leave if they are unhappy, no need to announce it from the mountain top.

 

[filmtwit]

IF memory serves me right, he was banned for repeated Trolling.

Personally I liked the guy and liked his work, he's really pretty good and I generally would read his photography related posts (which is why I'm here), but he stopped with that and simply spent his time here trolling, which is counter productive as a whole and really just bad/childish behavior when you consder that the site isn't about politics, but cameras and photos.

Evidently Frank was banned. I don't know for what; it may have nothing to do with his photos. In fact, I think he may have removed them himself--it's been a long time, and I don't know.

I'm all for tolerance, as long as opposing thoughts are expressed in a civil manner.

 

[peterm1]

I’d agree with all of that, and what everyone else has said after I posted what I did. Mostly.
My point wasn’t about photography forums, this one in particular, but was more general, just asking people to think about, for themselves, whether shoving people out, pushing them into the company of only those people who agree with them, by “banning” them is a good idea, and advances the goal we might be trying to advance, which seems to be a more civil society, or, even, just a more civil photo forum.

There is this “ it is very rare that closed belief systems are changed by arguments.”

And a bit earlier there was this, “ It is also unlikely that anyone really changes their beliefs.”

Although agreeing with the qualifiers “very rare” and “unlikely”, I would just ask, or wonder, if there isn’t anyone here with a somewhat checkered past, who is now a better person simply because someone else, against all odds, chose not to give up on him? People are capable of learning, we shouldn’t write them off. Not that I haven’t done that myself. It’s easier.

Anyway, I hope someone gets the larger point I was trying to make.
I am pretty much off topic now, so will leave it alone going forward.
Still hoping that Helen comes back, even though she obviously would not agree with me on any of this. That’s okay.

Larry I certainly get the larger point you were trying to make. But then again I was there already in agreeing with you.

Part of the problem is that increasingly in this day while there is theoretically freedom of speech, the attitude of many is that if they disagree with what you say (for which read, "think") then in their mind, you should only be free to exercise your free speech provided you go to Death Valley somewhere in the middle of the remotest and most inhospitable part of the desert found there, at midnight where you are free to shout at the moon. But only if you shout quietly. Oh and do not offend anyone while doing it (for which read - Do not offend them). And even if you do this, a lot of people will still be offended on the principle of "When a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear, does it make a sound?" Their answer is "Yes it does make a sound and I am bloody offended even when I did not hear it - and I am especially offended if someone tweets about it".)

Some have pointed out that RFF is private and can make its own rules of engagement. I do think a reckoning is coming with the internet (though this is more a point about the big end of that particular town) where those big players want protection from lawsuits on the grounds that "we are only a vehicle for people to express their opinions or voice their concerns and we have no editorial role." They then nevertheless proceed to exercise an editorial role by banning or shadow banning anything with which they disagree personally. With so much of the public space dependent upon these vehicles for people to be able to exercise their right of free speech in today's climate it is untenable for the internet to continue to have it both ways. Legislation is needed to fix it.

On the other hand, on mature reflection, I suppose it is open to a vehicle like RF, a small bit player in the "great game" to rewrite its rules of engagement along the lines of being more explicit - for example banning any political speech and requiring people to discuss photographic topics only (and politely) with no such divergences. Given the aims of RFF I think that may be OK. And it removes the potential need to make somewhat arbitrary decisions about banning people because someone says something that others object to. That way people can choose to participate in RFF or choose not to in an informed way.

But even then, it does highlight a problem I was alluding to in an earlier post. That of what constitutes political speech? To take a silly example suppose someone says "I belong to a political party that believes the color black is white."
I might say - that's political speech. They might more or less legitimately respond "No it is not, I am only stating a fact. I am a member of that party and its policy is that black is white". No politics there!
I might then say: "But that's nuts - As a matter of fact, science and common usage, black is black and white is white." Ah, says the first person "That's only your opinion which makes it political speech - you're BANNED!"
You can see where this ends up. Where do you draw the line once you start banning people for having an opinion? Especially if they respect other's rights when expressing it. Even if its a patently egregious, ugly, silly or plain dumb opinion.

 

[raid]

I once "nearly left RFF", and I erased many of my threads as that was still possible to do. You delete the first post, and all posts will get deleted. This was later changed by RFF.

I stayed here.

No website is perfect, and we have choices available to us. Many RFF members are very nice individuals, and this is why I stayed at RFF. Ignore a few individuals who are annoying or insulting.

Life is short, so I feel that we should try hard to move forward and to survive in this complex world.

I have made many real friends, and I met with quite a few RFF members in several countries. There is trust.

It is an unpleasant issue in this thread here, and I hope that things will work out in the end.

 

[splitimageview]

Some have pointed out that RFF is private and can make its own rules of engagement. I do think a reckoning is coming with the internet (though this is more a point about the big end of that particular town) where those big players want protection from lawsuits on the grounds that "we are only a vehicle for people to express their opinions or voice their concerns and we have no editorial role." They then nevertheless proceed to exercise an editorial role by banning or shadow banning anything with which they disagree personally. With so much of the public space dependent upon these vehicles for people to be able to exercise their right of free speech in today's climate it is untenable for the internet to continue to have it both ways. Legislation is needed to fix it.

It will be interesting to see if this actually happens. The sites you mentioned no doubt are capitalizing on the exception they carved out for themselves 24 years ago with Section 230; they certainly have been playing both sides, to great effect.

On the other hand, on mature reflection, I suppose it is open to a vehicle like RF, a small bit player in the "great game" to rewrite its rules of engagement along the lines of being more explicit - for example banning any political speech and requiring people to discuss photographic topics only (and politely) with no such divergences. Given the aims of RFF I think that may be OK. And it removes the potential need to make somewhat arbitrary decisions about banning people because someone says something that others object to. That way people can choose to participate in RFF or choose not to in an informed way.

Yes, these are the terms and rules on some other photo sites: no political discussion, even in the off topic forums. Even topics that start about photography are prone to people responding with political comments, and those are simply deleted if mods see them, or if the posts are reported.

There are also limits on other topics as well, it's not just politics. A large part of this is because no one wants to spend time moderating...the other part is that no site wants to alienate half the world of potential users.

 

[jsrockit]

Broader societal picture:
If instead of trying to educate, through unemotional, informed dialogue, we just deplatform, banish people we find to be beyond the pale, what actually happens then, in the real world?
Let’s use “Neo-Nazis” as an example, to the extent they exist. Bart Bart is still out there, but we are not talking to him; he didn’t cease to exist, but now he doesn’t have “friends” here, the very people, the only people, who might have eventually brought him around, he’s over at 4Chan or Qanon, with people who are all exactly like him, where he will not only never hear an opposing Viewpoint backed up by facts, his current views will be amplified and given emotional support day in and day out, forever. So, he’s unlikely ever to get “better”, and more likely to get even worse. That’s on us and any other “reasonable” group who ostracized him.

Maybe, but is it really a photography site's job to reeducate a 60-something year old man with radical views that are cancerous to society? I think being shunned by society sometimes makes people question themselves just as much as trying to change their mind through dialog (which rarely works, but sometimes does).

If so intolerant of other people’s way of thinking that we cannot bear to hear it, just use the ignore button until maturing a bit more.

It isn't about maturity. There is a difference between what is wrong and what is intolerably wrong. You are free to spout off any nonsense you like and people are free to ignore you and ban you from participating in a photography forum. Free speech does not shield you from consequences on a photography forum.

Once you reach a level of maturity where you can hear odious things without being “triggered” then engage the other, with facts, and unemotionally. And if you cannot out reason them, maybe the answer is to study more yourself, until you can, not shunning them just because you can’t

I find that it just does not work this easily in life... I really wish it did. It is only getting worse.

Hating “hate” isn't better than hate. It is hate.

I'm sorry, but this is not church it is a photography site in which certain topics are just not worth discussing without turning off a huge majority of the user base.

 

[Emile de Leon]

The problem is..enabling azzhats..to continue their deviated trips unopposed..in a public venue..
Who are not mentally capable of real..discussion..or listening..
As in..
Look at the US..right now..
And the problems it is in..
This forum is a microcosm of that..just way smarter than the avg person on the street..
But..
Generally..people dont change thru discussion..esp nazis..racists..you name it..rapists..murderers..they are what they are..
They only change thru the school of hard knocks..real hard knocks..and even then..too stubborn generally..for real change..
But..
As an intellectual argument..I agree w/Larry..
But as a physical existence reality..I beg to differ..
I think..
Someone has to be able to draw the line somewhere..for sanity..
When things get outta line too far..
Or you just have hate and chaos..
Which is what is happening in the US right now.
That line is nazis and whatever else smells like it..thats reprehensible..
That said..on the other hand..
I can tell you of the time I had to live with a KKK card carrying dude down in FL..
I wont go into all details here..and..I'm not white myself..and let me tell you..he instantly hated me right off..
But we were trapped in the same house together for 2 weeks..as I was invited there to stay by someone else..

He wouldnt sit at the table w/me..or even speak..for days..just drank beer and sulked..

His physical description goes like this..he is a carbon copy of Hulk Hogan..to the tee..

His job..loading car engine blocks into trucks in a junkyard..
One tough dude..
So on the 4th day or so..we find ourselves all alone in the house..in the living room..
Somehow we get to talking..and he starts to warm up..
And by the end of the 2 weeks..there are no issues whatsoever..
And the next time I come down there..he picks us up at the airport in his convertable..and gives me a big hug..
But..the connection and healing did not come thru any intellectual discussion..it came thru something else..that cant be explained..

 

[Rayt]

I was one of the photo.net regulars from 20 years ago. The problem with that forum was the lack of good moderators. Threads about Leica would draw in the usual trolls and end with name calling: dentists and neck jewellery with zero interference from moderators if there was one. It got old after a while.

If you want to participate in a photography forum then talk about photography. If you want to talk about MAGA then go to Stormfront.

 

[raid]

I was one of the photo.net regulars from 20 years ago. The problem with that forum was the lack of good moderators. Threads about Leica would draw in the usual trolls and end with name calling: dentists and neck jewellery with zero interference from moderators if there was one. It got old after a while.

If you want to participate in a photography forum then talk about photography. If you want to talk about MAGA then go to Stormfront.

I remember how aggressive some people at PN were. This was especially true for Leica and Rangefinders. It is much better here.

 

[peterm1]

I was one of the photo.net regulars from 20 years ago. The problem with that forum was the lack of good moderators. Threads about Leica would draw in the usual trolls and end with name calling: dentists and neck jewellery with zero interference from moderators if there was one. It got old after a while.

If you want to participate in a photography forum then talk about photography. If you want to talk about MAGA then go to Stormfront.

I had the same problem at photo.net and left for exactly reason you mention. However these people were specifically setting out to be abusive trolls. Not people just expressing an opinion. There were setting out to try to upset people. In the end I just gave up and left the site never to return except a couple of times a few years later to view activity (but not to post). At that time the site had become moribund - crickets. Underlining the importance of good moderation I suppose for a healthy ecosystem. I don't think anyone found the kind of behavior that went on there to be acceptable under any rules of engagement.

PS Do you realize the inherent contradiction in last paragraph where you say do not speak politics here. Then instantly make a political comment in terms I presume Trump supporters would suspect is most likely deliberately designed to denigrate them. Naughty! naughty! I am calling you on this.

 

[CMur12]

A question to responders to my comment above: Why would anyone have a problem being recognized on the web if all their posts were thoughtful and unhurtful?? The internet is pushing many of us toward abusive behavior. Somehow this trend needs to be reined in.

Jamie, I understand your point, but there are reasons not to provide full identity on the Internet.

I worked for thirty years in Child Protective Services and there are people with Internet access who don't like me.

I avoid social media because I don't want someone identifying me and creating a major disruption on sites I visit. That could happen here, too.

I identify myself by first name in my posts, so that I can be addressed personally in replies, and I try to direct replies to OPs by first name, if available, as well.

- Murray

 

[Rayt]

I had the same problem at photo.net and left for exactly reason you mention. However these people were specifically setting out to be abusive trolls. Not people just expressing an opinion. There were setting out to try to upset people. In the end I just gave up and left the site never to return except a couple of times a few years later to view activity (but not to post). At that time the site had become moribund - crickets. Underlining the importance of good moderation I suppose for a healthy ecosystem. I don't think anyone found the kind of behavior that went on there to be acceptable under any rules of engagement.

PS Do you realize the inherent contradiction in last paragraph where you say do not speak politics here. Then instantly make a political comment in terms I presume Trump supporters would suspect is most likely deliberately designed to denigrate them. Naughty! naughty! I am calling you on this.

Guilty as charged. I was about to post something even more offensive but did want the ban. Kidding. I agree there is a certain bias regards to what is politically acceptable and I personally do not know where the line is drawn so I keep it safe and just talk about photography here. Forgive my rudeness. I kinda miss those old photo.net days and whenever someone mentioned Minox a certain prolific character would come out and that made it a small world.

 

[peterm1]

The problem is..enabling azzhats..to continue their deviated trips unopposed..
Not mentally capable of real..discussion..or listening..
As in..
Look at the US..right now..
And the problems it is in..
This forum is a microcosm of that..just way smarter than the avg person on the street..
But..
Generally..people dont change thru discussion..esp nazis..racists..you name it..rapists..murderers..they are what they are..
They only change thru the school of hard knocks..real hard knocks..and even then..too stubborn generally..for real change..
But..
As an intellectual argument..I agree w/Larry..
But as a physical existence reality..I beg to differ..
I think..
Someone has to be able to draw the line somewhere..for sanity..
When things get outta line too far..
Or you just have hate and chaos..
Which is what is happening in the US right now.
That line is nazis and whatever else smells like it..

But Emile surely the answer is to just not engage with the azzhats. Most likely eventually they will give up and go away. They are like fishermen. If the fish are not biting they go elsewhere.

And what's the old saying - "Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their own level and then beat you with their experience."

But that is not about blanket banning them necessarily (unless they are being abusive which I think warrants banning due to it being antisocial, passive aggressive and maybe just plain aggressive) its about individuals exercising their personal choice to block those azzhats so they do not have to engage with them.

 

[peterm1]

Guilty as charged. I was about to post something even more offensive but did want the ban. Kidding. I agree there is a certain bias regards to what is politically acceptable and I personally do not know where the line is drawn so I keep it safe and just talk about photography here. Forgive my rudeness. I kinda miss those old photo.net days and whenever someone mentioned Minox a certain prolific character would come out and that made it a small world.

Thank you for having the good grace to acknowledge the transgression.