the joy of photography

[antiquark]

The mods might be interested in this page:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board?

Those are the rules for the Bad Astronomy forum. It keeps things under control over there. However they have a lot of mods, and they enforce the rules with great zeal.

Some excerpts:

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks.
...
No cursing. ...replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick obvious enough to be noticed by a moderator will not be tolerated.
...
Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated
...
Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism.

If there was a similar cursing rule here, I would have been banned many times over. 🙂

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Respectfully, I have been on this forum since its beginning and have made almost 10,000 posts.

.

this statement, your sixteen posts on this thread - after telling us last week - you would only be posting on W/NW in the near future, shows your dedication and commitment to RFF!....I sincerely hope it soon returns to the standard you hope for! 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

this statement, your sixteen posts on this thread - after telling us last week - you would only be posting on W/NW in the near future, shows your dedication and commitment to RFF!....I sincerely hope it soon returns to the standard you hope for! 🙂

Dave, thankyou for the vote of confidence and the trust that you have placed in my judgement.

Yes, RFF will be a better place for it.

Again, I thank you. And I am sure the Admin of RFF will move forward now that you have given your support behind it.

Big Hug. For the good laugh that you just gave me. That's what it's all about. I now sing a Barney Song.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Dave, Brian can stop posting and start doing it again as much times as he wants to, and he's trying to help make RFF a better place. For me, his posting shines in elegance and is usually far from other members vulgar irony.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[FrankS]

I jumped in to Brian's defense as well, but after I saw how elegantly Brian handled Dave's post, I deleted mine. Dave's post has a smiley which indicates humour, but then, I'm sure that Nick Tropp was sometimes just expressing his wacky brand of humour as well. We need to self-censor our wickedly funny wit for the good of the collective.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yes, Frank, but sometimes a fair answer is fair...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Dave, thankyou for the vote of confidence and the trust that you have placed in my judgement.

Yes, RFF will be a better place for it.

Again, I thank you. And I am sure the Admin of RFF will move forward now that you have given your support behind it.

Big Hug. For the good laugh that you just gave me. That's what it's all about. I now sing a Barney Song.

Well - I closed with a genuine sentiment, but am glad you had a good laugh!, - that is indeed "what it's all about" as I said in my earlier post - IMO some of us take things far too seriously!....this was just an opinion and view, without trying to find a 'helpful' solution - we are allowed to do this - aren't we?
PS I now go to my bed - wondering what the heck a 'Barney song' is?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think the previous posts show the general situation around here... Frank thinks Dave's smiley is important. I don't. I think maybe Brian felt Dave's comment on his posting/not posting was not a thing he should have talked about... Brian's answer was soft. Mine would have been stronger, I guess: and I have never had anything against Dave... So: we all should be careful, because we all feel in different ways...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Sonnar Brian]

"I love you, You love Me, We are a Happy Family" (or something close to that)

In all seriousness, Dave's post is how friend's at a Pub poke fun at each other and make a point known.

Others on this forum, in the past, most now banned, would have simply posted "You NAZI, trying to cram your values down our throats, CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP!"

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Here is the thread:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88328

Dave, I lied. My fingers were moving as I was typing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am not exaggerating, and it should be safe to read any thread posted on this forum. None of them should leave me mad and upset after reading them. If they do, then it is time to crack down.

Dear Brian,

The devil there lies in 'mad' and 'upset'. How about 'mildly irritated' or 'annoyed' or 'exasperated'?

Different people have different comfort zones. If you stay too far inside your comfort zone for too long there is a great danger of becoming bland, self-satisfied, and, yes, arrogant. In particular, some people hate actually thinking about anything: all they want is to have their prejudices confirmed. As different people have different prejudices, it is impossible to confirm everyone's prejudices all the time.

I will cheerfully put up with being mildly irritated, annoyed or even exasperated in return for new ideas and new viewpoints. Out-and-out rudeness for its own sake is another matter. I fully take Rover's point that there are a few people who have nothing else in mind but to insult and attack others, without ever posting anything useful, but I still believe that there are only ever a very few people who do this. As long as someone does, reasonably often, post interesting ideas or useful information, I can put up with their being the sort of person I might not want to befriend. For that matter, I might even get past my initial irritation and find that they are the sort of person I might like to meet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Brian,

I was thinking some more about 'mad' and 'upset', and came to the conclusion that an awful lot of the time, it's down to self control.

Surely we've all looked at pictures and though "Why on earth did he post that?" or (worse still) "Why on earth does he keep posting pictures like that?"

Then there are the questions where the OP clearly hasn't thought too hard about what they are asking: "What is the best XXmm lens?" If they then went on "I shoot mostly landscapes" or "I want it for portraiture" or "Close focusing is important" or "I don't want to spend too much money" or "I'd like something as compact as possible," that would be another matter, but the basic question is not much use. In the answers, there'll always be someone who'll say, "You don't want an XX, you want a YY," rather than "You might also like to consider a YY, because..."

In other words, the trick is not to respond too stiffly or argumentatively, or indeed, quite often, not to respond at all. Sometimes we do bring suffering upon our own heads.

Dave's point about being able to forget about arguments and upsets is also extremely important -- I find I've been getting better at that for years -- and another useful trick is always to put the best possible construction on another's post.

Recently, for example, someone wrote something that could easily be taken as implying that I was a nerd who didn't take pictures. Well, my site and books defend me against the latter charge at least, but instead of being offended I decided that maybe he meant something else entirely (which his post could aso be taken as implying) and responded accordingly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Brian,

I was thinking some more about 'mad' and 'upset', and came to the conclusion that an awful lot of the time, it's down to self control.

Big Edit

Cheers,

R.

Don’t forget there is also custom and context to consider, I’m only a pleb of a grammar school lad but our experience of education wouldn’t have been that dissimilar, we share a mid 20c world vision of sorts, we could, and did, bang away for pages of argument with nothing worse than exasperation as a result.

I couldn’t safely do that with Brian, because although I’ve spent a lot of time in the US I can’t accurately predict how he would react to so many things.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Roger, I respect your view on the matter. You demonstrate the self-control that you speak of.

Some recent threads, now deleted, are over the line. When friends of mine let me know they are quitting RFF because of them, that is too much to bear. We are losing good members because of a few nasty, consistently rude posters. Some of these threads go on for days as there are simply too many members to be effectively monitored by two moderators. Eventually, they get moved, closed, and sometimes deleted. But the damage is done, decent members are offended and leave.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some recent threads, now deleted, are over the line. When friends of mine let me know they are quitting RFF because of them, that is too much to bear. We are losing good members because of a few nasty, consistently rude posters. Some of these threads go on for days as there are simply too many members to be effectively monitored by two moderators. Eventually, they get moved, closed, and sometimes deleted. But the damage is done, decent members are offended and leave.

Dear Brian,

I'd not argue with you for a moment about 'over the line' and people quitting. All that worries me is that I'd rather put up with a few really nasty people (with judicious use of the ignore button) than with overly heavy-handed moderation. With the latter, I have two concerns.

One is the point I made earlier about the comfort zone. A forum can become too cosy and self-reinforcing: a leaven of the bloody-minded is useful. I completely agree about the difference between bloody-minded and willfully rude, but I would always prefer that the moderators err on the side of tolerance. Back Alley and Rover are brilliant; I'm just worried that others might not be as broad minded, though I welcome the idea of relieving the strain on both of them.

The other concern is that I (and possibly others) who are occasionally intemperate (take that how you will) might be banned by excessive moderation. As Stewart pointed out, there really is a strong cultural background to consider (custom and context, as he put it). Frances, who lived the first 30 years of her life in the United States, is convinced that on average, Americans are more likely to take offence, over more things, than Europeans. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who described Britain and the United States as 'two countries, separated by a common language'. And he was Irish, so he should know! The point is that it can literally be impossible to guess how someone from another culture may react.

The enormous difference, to me, is between those who try to help, or at the very least float interesting ideas, and those who never seem to say anything useful (or if they do, say it on threads I do not read) but are always ready to attack someone else, almost regardless of what that 'someone else' has to say. The former (in my view) are worth putting up with; the problem with the latter is that while they may never be rude enough to warrant banning them for one post, a corrosive drip-drip-drip of negativity and personal attack may be just as poisonous to the forum, or perhaps more so.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Logistically, both Rover and Joe are in North America. Flare-ups occur half-a-world away while they are asleep, and within North America while they are at work.

A new Moderator would have to answer to them, and Stephen for actions. One that is too far out of line can be fired. Forum software allows a "banned member" to be re-instated by the Admin. It also allows authorities and permissions to control the power that a moderator has. I think a tiered moderator approach, with the current super-moderators left at the top tier would prevent "tripping all over themselves".

I would have been banned myself a long time ago for a couple of posts if the moderator of the Photo.net Nikon forum had that power here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Logistically, both Rover and Joe are in North America. Flare-ups occur half-a-world away while they are asleep, and within North America while they are at work.

Dear Brian,

Good point. This suggests to me that we need a moderator who is (a) in Europe or possibly Australia and (b) retired. Perhaps Stephen could bribe Dave Wilkinson sufficiently?

(To quote HAL 9000 in 2001, "I'm sorry, Dave..." -- but even if you're not interested, you are the sort of person they/we need.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

A moderate Yorkshireman … I’ll have to think about that one, however in my experience it’s late in the evening in the UK time, 5 or 6 in the evening EST that is the likely time for trouble to start, and I’ve never known the Australians to be disruptive … well except during the ashes tests and only then because they’re pool losers … the extra help is needed when there’s most risk

The simple fact is a good stew needs salt, and there’s a range of flavour that one can swallow comfortably, if every potentially divisive issue is avoided the resulting discussions will be so bland no one will be interested in taking part in them.

 

[gdi]

The other concern is that I (and possibly others) who are occasionally intemperate (take that how you will) might be banned by excessive moderation. As Stewart pointed out, there really is a strong cultural background to consider (custom and context, as he put it). Frances, who lived the first 30 years of her life in the United States, is convinced that on average, Americans are more likely to take offence, over more things, than Europeans.

It seems avoiding banishment should be quite easy under most circumstances for anyone with reasonable self control; "The Golden Rules of RFF" are clearly posted in the RFF FAQ section.

But given the climate recently, I too have written things in response to insults (of me, or other people or groups) that could possibly have resulted in my being banned. If, instead of extremely light moderation, there had been a stronger hand in maintaining harmony that possibility would have been approaching null. But there is point at which being banned can seem a reasonable price to pay in order to stand up to bullies and trouble makers.

What we have recently experienced, in light of the lenient enforcement of the rules and the large number of new members, is a reformation of the group. The development of a group or community takes the place by forming, storming, and then norming. And existing groups, such as ours, evolve over time they revert to the storming process to seek equilibrium. If you don't make your self heard during the storming phase, then you will not have an influence on the norms emerging from conflict. So, some who care about the group and feel vested in it, will work to steer it toward what they feel is best. Others may simply mourn its loss and leave. That is why using the ignore button is not a solution for people who feel obligated to at least try to halt what they see as decline.

Of course this dynamic works both ways, those who seek to change to group will challenge the existing norms and naturally push things in the direction they desire. Since we have existing rules (many forming groups do not), the simplest solution is the enforcement of that "black letter law"; and that will be strongly resisted by those opposing the rules. This thread is the embodiment of that conflict; it is healthy. But in the end, some members will find it is not to their liking and they will leave.

Regarding cultural differences, I too have lived in the US a long time and traveled in Europe. I believe Frances may be right in that Americans are more likely to be offended than Europeans. But my conclusion is simply that the average European is more arrogant and comfortable insulting others than the average American. And my anecdotal conclusion is as valid as anyone else's anecdotal conclusion; and it should be obvious that neither conclusion adds one wit to solving the problems at RFF.

The enormous difference, to me, is between those who try to help, or at the very least float interesting ideas, and those who never seem to say anything useful (or if they do, say it on threads I do not read) but are always ready to attack someone else, almost regardless of what that 'someone else' has to say. The former (in my view) are worth putting up with; the problem with the latter is that while they may never be rude enough to warrant banning them for one post, a corrosive drip-drip-drip of negativity and personal attack may be just as poisonous to the forum, or perhaps more so.

Cheers,

R.

I disagree with that, if a member decides to insult others and break the rules they should not be tolerated simply because they had offered something of value previously. But of course I have enough respect for and confidence in Joe and Rover to exercise prudent judgment in such matters and will support whatever direction they decide is appropriate.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But my conclusion is simply that the average European is more arrogant and comfortable insulting others than the average American. And my anecdotal conclusion is as valid as anyone else's anecdotal conclusion; and it should be obvious that neither conclusion adds one wit to solving the problems at RFF.

I disagree with that, if a member decides to insult others and break the rules they should not be tolerated simply because they had offered something of value previously. But of course I have enough respect for and confidence in Joe and Rover to exercise prudent judgment in such matters and will support whatever direction they decide is appropriate.

Highlight 1: A lot of Europeans would say exactly the same about Americans, which does rather indicate that the cultural differences cut both ways.

Highlight 2: Of course it's a question of balance. All I'm suggesting is that the occasional transgression be forgiven, if on balance someone is helpful and tries to fit in most of the time, while the difficult cases are the ones who are never so rude as to invite immediate banning, but are consistently corrosive and contribute nothing except that corrosion.

Cheers,

R.