Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on March 10, 2018, 02:39:11 pm
-
The Coffee Corner has not been a happy place of late. The forum’s description indicates that it is for “discussion of photographic topics of a general nature” but several threads have been purely political, some overtly so and some masquerading as having a connection, however peripheral, with photography. Discussions have become unnecessarily aggressive, more heat has been generated than light, some threads have descended into acrimony and some members have been temporarily barred from posting. Perfectly reasonably, Kevin and Chris took the decision to ban further political discussion.
I have now started to act as a moderator. I enjoy discussion and rational argument; I spend my working life indulging in it. I like hearing political views, whether they coincide with or differ from my own. I have therefore taken the decision, with the agreement of Kevin and Chris, to reopen the forum to politics and the word “photographic” has been removed from the description. Political discussion must, however, be confined to the Coffee Corner: this is a photographic site.
We have retained the last sentence of the board’s description: “Posters must conduct themselves in a civil and adult nature”. I intend to moderate political discussions very much more strictly than those on photography-related topics. The rules are set out below: they will apply in particular to political discussions in the Coffee Corner, but the principles apply to all exchanges in any of LuLa’s forums.
- Discussions must be conducted politely.
- Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable.
- Ad hominem attacks on members will not be tolerated.
- The forum is not, however, a “safe space”, in which views which some might find upsetting are silenced merely because some might find them upsetting.
Sanctions will be applied, flexibly but rationally, to those who break the rules. The sanctions will include deletion of the offending post; warnings, private and/or public; temporary bans from posting, beginning with a week; and, for persistent and repeat offenders, permanent exclusion. On occasion, it may be necessary to lock or delete the entire thread.
We are all adults; many, if not all, of us are professional people. I can see no reason why interesting and thoughtful discussions cannot take place in compliance with those stipulations. I hope they can.
Jeremy
-
Good luck Jeremy!
I hope moderating the Coffee Corner won't slow down the pace at which you post compelling images in other areas.
Perhaps there should be a thread specifically for "Maiden Aunts," which ideally won't get any posts whatever.
Eric
-
+1, except that to say "we're all adults" glosses over a few performances.
-
Language, written, is an interesting aspect of communication via the Internet. That it requires sound understanding - or at least a good dictionary - is part of the thrill of interfacing with people on the medium. You get no facial clues.
I'm currently deeply involved in running through a couple of episodes of The Sopranos every night; this is relevant because the language there is somewhat, well, definitely ripe. Yet, after the initial shock that it is what it is and can be found on a tv show, it becomes quite interesting way beyond its use in the programme itself.
It serves to illustrate what passes for normality within different spheres of human relationships. Before I became an apprentice engineer I hardly ever swore: it was just so common (in the British, put-down sense) and not the thing to do. And even there, in the factory, there were words that were seldom used. Now, in Sopranos, much scripted shock is expressed over the hero/villain's occasional use of the c word (no, not cancer) yet, here in Spain, even the ladies can be heard to use it in everyday conversation over a cup of coffee in any bar. How come that the very same word has such widely differing acceptance values in different cultures? Interestingly, in Spanish, it also starts with a c. You see what I mean about the thrill of language?
-
Release the dragons!
(http://weclipart.com/gimg/94BC736F1A4508BA/RTdKpjdLc.gif)
-
Brave move Jeremy. I echo Eric in hoping you will continue posting images.
Chuck
-
Why bother? Seriously. It isn’t as though there are not eight billion places on the net to harangue about politics. I wish you the best, but fool’s errand and pyrrhic victory come to mind.
Rand
-
Why bother? Seriously. It isn’t as though there are not eight billion places on the net to harangue about politics. I wish you the best, but fool’s errand and pyrrhic victory come to mind.
Rand
You make a good point: the only recourse that makes a difference is removal. Do much of that, and LuLa eventually becomes redundant courtesy that heavy pruning.
In the end, the sensible way is ever a compromise: act where there remains no alternative, but consider that seriously before doing. Where it really makes little difference, let it ride.
-
Better yet, confine the suspensions to personal insults. That would include personal insults against political figures as well as against posters. Let the rest of it flow.
-
Another forum I belong to has a pretty strict rule of not discussing any USA politics. Politics in other countries are fine to talk about, but USA politics is strictly off limits since it typically divulges into a sh*t show.
I think it's a good rule.
-
Better yet, confine the suspensions to personal insults. That would include personal insults against political figures as well as against posters. Let the rest of it flow.
So if I don't name you (or anyone specifically), it's not personal? "All right/left wingers suck" is fine? "Anyone over/under the age of X sucks" is fine?
How about we let the moderator work it out by himself and if you get a warning, take it to heart and stop whatever you were warned for and then never get suspended or banned?
-
Come on, Phil. Saying anyone or any group "sucks" is a personal insult. On the other hand, saying "left-wingers seem incapable of coming to grips with the real world' isn't. It's a pretty clear distinction.
-
Better yet, confine the suspensions to personal insults. That would include personal insults against political figures as well as against posters. Let the rest of it flow.
Yes, sounds a good idea, especially when tightly focussed (there, snapper-obsessive should be happy) insults are projected at members of the forum. It makes little sense to insult politicians, though, for they are immune to it by nature; it comes with the territory.
-
Good point, Rob. I know that from experience, but I forgot.
-
Come on, Phil. Saying anyone or any group "sucks" is a personal insult. On the other hand, saying "left-wingers seem incapable of coming to grips with the real world' isn't. It's a pretty clear distinction.
How so? "All older people seem incapable of coming to grips with the reality of a modern world". If I say that in a thread involving older people, you think that's not designed to label them as having no idea, without actually addressing an argument?
I mean look at the current thread that's playing from Slobo's post - I'm being accused of ad hominem attacks on an author where I am both responding to his claim of special status (which automatically makes discussion of him valid) and backing that up with discussion about how and why I think he's wrong. Imagine if that were a poster in these threads - would I be charged with a personal insult? Ironically, the argument against me is also a "personal" attack saying that I've resorted to ad hominem to carry an argument.
Do you see how easily this becomes entirely subjective and reductive?
If Jeremy wants to have a crack, then let him do so on his own terms and either the forum will work or it will not. Provide feedback, yes, but let's not start to try to dictate to him how it should work - if anyone wants to do that, they should have put their hand up to moderate. Enough from our back seats.
-
How about we let the moderator work it out by himself and if you get a warning, take it to heart and stop whatever you were warned for and then never get suspended or banned?
Now that's a cracking idea.
Jeremy
-
Now that's a cracking idea.
Jeremy
Careful, Jeremy; could be seen as taking sides!
:-)
Rob
-
Jeremy, you're among friends, but they're not gonna let you get away with diddly squat.
-
Jeremy, you're among friends, but they're not gonna let you get away with diddly squat.
On the contrary, I will go out of my way to accommodate the direction Jeremy provides - it's the only fair and reasonable way to test his vision, for want of a better word, for the way this should work. Let's not beat it down until it's had a chance! If we (the majority of users) don't like it in the long run then it won't work - I speak with over 10 years' experience moderating a political forum on a gaming site (I stopped about 8 months ago) - but if we settle down and consider the path reasonable (albeit not perhaps not exactly as we want), then it will work and the compromises will be acceptable.
-
Surely this is a case of using common sense. I have stopped reading threads that go on and on and can degenerate into a few people arguing back and forth. I am happy to be criticised, but only if it is constructive. If someone is abusive to me, I walk away. If this forum is to thrive, then don't allow language that causes people to walk away.
Jonathan
-
Surely this is a case of using common sense. I have stopped reading threads that go on and on and can degenerate into a few people arguing back and forth. I am happy to be criticised, but only if it is constructive. If someone is abusive to me, I walk away. If this forum is to thrive, then don't allow language that causes people to walk away.
Jonathan
Jonathan, boredom drives people away before threats.
Comes a time one realises that attitudes, if genuine and not adopted for the sake of Internet argument, will never be changed, and all one is doing is running up one's own electricty bill.
People have their beliefs for whatever reasons that they do, and no argument will change ideas firmly estabished within the mind and soul. Young minds have their fixations because the young think they are right; the older minds have their fixations because they know they are right. Even when they are not. Why, how can this be? Because few things are either right or wrong; most are just reflecting differing shades of reality and interpretation of its evidence, painted in any colour you find flavour of your month.
I can only say that I have found it increasingly difficult to keep even a soupçon of interest alive in these related threads of politics and political correctness. It's due to the failure of my desire to keep my head above water in these accelerating whirlpools of cant and obfuscation.
From whether Jeremy should or should not be a Mod. (why anyone would want to be one is a question for debate in its own right) through to whether or not the CC should be nuked or not, the discussion has turned tedious in the extreme. Seems to have become a debate about my maths degree being more worthy than your degree; my years on a gaming site (wow!) of more value than yours on a photographic site; and this from people who, at the same time, insist that LuLa should be confined to matters solely photographic. Be careful of what you wish, folks, how else would you be able to find excuse to float your impressive banners?
-
There are only three types who engage in online political debates:
those who enjoy the drama,
those who fear losing the argument, and
those who haven't yet learned that nobody cares what anybody thinks.
-
I think it would be useful for those of us who decide to post in this forum, especially on political topics, to enter a location—at least by country, if not country and city—by filling in the location field in their user profiles (see attached).
One of the things I value most about the LuLa forums is their international character. I'm especially interested in hearing the views of posters who are not in North America.
Again, I'm proposing this with reference especially to political topics, but it would be also be useful to know where a poster is based when replying to technical inquiries because some information, especially involving particular vendors, is inherently country-specific.
It only takes a few seconds to enter a location and, unless you're in a witness-protection program, I don't think it involves giving away any sensitive information.
-
Some people just need to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- some old dead guy
-
I think it would be useful for those of us who decide to post in this forum, especially on political topics, to enter a location—at least by country
I'd agree, Chris, and add that they should tell us how old they are. Makes a difference.
-
I'd agree, Chris, and add that they should tell us how old they are. Makes a difference.
Careful! You will immediately estrange one particular, pre-teen, age-conscious member!
;-)
-
If I may suggest something: what if the forum introduced a maximum amount of posts per day per person in any thread in that section? It seems that the discussion are becoming more conflictual when people exchange posts in rapid succession. Putting a software limit to the number of posts and publishing it in advance may prevent that.
I would also add an element of strategy to the discussion. Suppose the limit is chosen to be 5. Someone having used 3 posts would be enticed to think twice before using the remaining two for that day.
-
If I may suggest something: what if the forum introduced a maximum amount of posts per day per person in any thread in that section? It seems that the discussion are becoming more conflictual when people exchange posts in rapid succession. Putting a software limit to the number of posts and publishing it in advance may prevent that.
I would also add an element of strategy to the discussion. Suppose the limit is chosen to be 5. Someone having used 3 posts would be enticed to think twice before using the remaining two for that day.
it's an interesting idea, but I am not aware of the forum software having that feature and it's certainly not something that could be done manually.
Jeremy
-
If I may suggest something: what if the forum introduced a maximum amount of posts per day per person in any thread in that section? It seems that the discussion are becoming more conflictual when people exchange posts in rapid succession. Putting a software limit to the number of posts and publishing it in advance may prevent that.
I would also add an element of strategy to the discussion. Suppose the limit is chosen to be 5. Someone having used 3 posts would be enticed to think twice before using the remaining two for that day.
What an odd perspective.
In other words, the more interesting a topic may become, the less one would be able to participate! Quiet extraordinary thinking.
Rob
-
Thanks, great move!
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: and this comes before Trump fires all of his staff! ;D
-
it's an interesting idea, but I am not aware of the forum software having that feature and it's certainly not something that could be done manually.
Jeremy
Maybe there is an add-on for the backend to do that?
-
I was off line last week during a visit with my West Coast daughter. As a former moderator of what I thought would be an apolitical thread I can only wish Jeremy good luck and hope that his job is not as time consuming as mine was.
-
As a former moderator of what I thought would be an apolitical thread I can only wish Jeremy good luck and hope that his job is not as time consuming as mine was.
It doesn't need to be time consuming.
You make the statement of the way it is and then close the thread. Works every time.
This is already two pages and the only comment that mattered was the first.
-
The Coffee Corner has not been a happy place of late. The forum’s description indicates that it is for “discussion of photographic topics of a general nature” but several threads have been purely political, some overtly so and some masquerading as having a connection, however peripheral, with photography. Discussions have become unnecessarily aggressive, more heat has been generated than light, some threads have descended into acrimony and some members have been temporarily barred from posting. Perfectly reasonably, Kevin and Chris took the decision to ban further political discussion.
I have now started to act as a moderator. I enjoy discussion and rational argument; I spend my working life indulging in it. I like hearing political views, whether they coincide with or differ from my own. I have therefore taken the decision, with the agreement of Kevin and Chris, to reopen the forum to politics and the word “photographic” has been removed from the description. Political discussion must, however, be confined to the Coffee Corner: this is a photographic site.
We have retained the last sentence of the board’s description: “Posters must conduct themselves in a civil and adult nature”. I intend to moderate political discussions very much more strictly than those on photography-related topics. The rules are set out below: they will apply in particular to political discussions in the Coffee Corner, but the principles apply to all exchanges in any of LuLa’s forums.
- Discussions must be conducted politely.
- Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable.
- Ad hominem attacks on members will not be tolerated.
- The forum is not, however, a “safe space”, in which views which some might find upsetting are silenced merely because some might find them upsetting.
Sanctions will be applied, flexibly but rationally, to those who break the rules. The sanctions will include deletion of the offending post; warnings, private and/or public; temporary bans from posting, beginning with a week; and, for persistent and repeat offenders, permanent exclusion. On occasion, it may be necessary to lock or delete the entire thread.
We are all adults; many, if not all, of us are professional people. I can see no reason why interesting and thoughtful discussions cannot take place in compliance with those stipulations. I hope they can.
Jeremy
I would also suggest public floggings and allowing a limited number of F-Bombs per year for each paying Forum member.
After all Boys will be Boys, eh Jeremy.
Don Bryant
-
I joined Luminous Landscape to hear discussions of photography. I am disappointed in the site. I care nothing about another's opinion on politics, nor anyone's "rant" on anything. I just want to hear constructive discussions of photographic equipment and its application to photographic technique. Sorry, but I don't want political discussions, even though I may be the only one.
-
Why bother? Seriously. It isn’t as though there are not eight billion places on the net to harangue about politics.
Exactly!
Better move LuLa owners; close down that forum. Jeremy's time would be well spent elsewhere. Then all we can argue about is Nikon vs. Canon (or is Sony the new fill in the blank), Mac vs. Windows, Epson vs. Canon/HP. At least they are all photo related. Etiquette and political discussions; an oxymoron.
-
...Sorry, but I don't want political discussions...
Nobody is forcing you to read them.
-
Political discussions are banned everywhere on this site. I have deleted today's mini-discussion and remedied my carelessness in leaving this thread unlocked.
Jeremy