Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: stamper on September 21, 2011, 07:20:25 am
-
It has annoyed me for some time that the forum allows posters to lock or delete topics that they have started. I can understand this if it goes off topic or gets offensive. However that isn't the case all of the time. In this instance a lot of posters took time to answer the question posed and the latter post was the thanks the posters got for their efforts.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57889.20
I think that the moderator should disable this function.
-
If you like, start a new thread and refer back to the old one.
I think that allowing someone who starts a thread to decided when its run its course is appropriate.
Michael
-
I think that allowing someone who starts a thread to decide when its run its course is appropriate.
I disagree. The person who starts a new topic is not the only stakeholder in the conversation.
-
This was my thoughts as well. If you look at the original thread the poster ended the thread on a surly and rude note without anyone being able to reply. As stated the thread was amicable and hadn't reached a natural end. Starting a new thread and linking back looks like someone has a score to settle. However it is Michael's forum and he decides. 8)
-
However it is Michael's forum and he decides. 8)
Exactly. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I see nothing broken here requiring an urgent fix. Move along.
-
(http://www.blogcdn.com/massively.joystiq.com/media/2008/10/internet_serious_business_resize.jpg)
-
Exactly. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I see nothing broken here requiring an urgent fix. Move along.
Can you recommend a speed? ;) Merely exercising a point of view, which I am entitled to? :)
-
Time to lock this thread? ;)
-
I disagree. The person who starts a new topic is not the only stakeholder in the conversation.
I agree with Michael on this one. If a person starts a specific thread, say for help, he may not like (or appreciate) some of the snide remarks certain individuals may make. The way some people offer their "help" is really nothing but derision (or carries a condescending tone to it) ... so, if one particular individual on that thread answers the OP's question to his satisfaction, then the OP may see fit to put an end to what he perceives as an ifinite digression of crappola on "his" thread that he feels is unwelcome.
So while it may be true that the OP is not the only "stakeholder" in the conversation, the flipside to that is no one is forcing anyone else to take the time to respond either, and so for those who do respond maybe it would behoove them (and everyone else) to do so with respect.
Personally, I think it would be great if the originator of the thread also could delete individual comments that he doesn't like on his thread, comments which he feels is taking the discussion in a direction he does not wish to go.
Jack
.
-
Quote
Personally, I think it would be great if the originator of the thread also could delete individual comments that he doesn't like on his thread, comments which he feels is taking the discussion in a direction he does not wish to go.
Unquote
You are obviously not serious? :) You wouldn't have any postings. ;D Seriously, this issue is a double edged sword which I accept and there isn't a right or wrong answer. I feel that the moderator should call time on a thread. That is why he has that post? :)
-
... If a person starts a specific thread, say for help, he may not like (or appreciate) some of the snide remarks certain individuals may make. The way some people offer their "help" is really nothing but derision (or carries a condescending tone to it) ... so, if one particular individual on that thread answers the OP's question to his satisfaction, then the OP may see fit to put an end to what he perceives as an ifinite digression of crappola on "his" thread that he feels is unwelcome... I think it would be great if the originator of the thread also could delete individual comments that he doesn't like on his thread, comments which he feels is taking the discussion in a direction he does not wish to go.
The moment this forum is sanitized from all those "snide, derisive, condescending", out-of-the-left-field, quirky, etc. digressions... is the moment I will stop participating in it. I've had enough dry, rational, boring, PhD thesis-like discussions in my life to come here for another portion of the same.
This forum is a community, not a red-light district. You do not come to satisfy yourself, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am style, get what you've come here for, turn around and leave, without a good-bye or thank-you. At least in the red-light district you would pay for that "pleasure".
If you do come here with that "I got what I needed, screw you" attitude, rest assured that sooner or later there will be someone who will introduce you to the basic Newtonian laws of physics, namely action-reaction, and respond in kind, with with all those "snide, derisive, condescending" remarks. I will be the first one to volunteer.
-
You are obviously not serious? :) You wouldn't have any postings. ;D
Correction: wankers like you wouldn't be on my threads ;)
In fact, let's take you for example: the truth is I have got plenty of feedback from better photographers than you on my threads, which proves my point: cull the unwanted from your discussions while responding and appreciating only those who are helpful to you ;D
I believe each person should have the same right to converse only with the people he wants to "on a thread" ... same as he would choose only to converse with the people he wants to personally.
Seriously, this issue is a double edged sword which I accept and there isn't a right or wrong answer. I feel that the moderator should call time on a thread. That is why he has that post? :)
I was being serious. Don't you wish you could do that now? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Cheers
Jack
.
-
The moment this forum is sanitized from all those "snide, derisive, condescending", out-of-the-left-field, quirky, etc. digressions... is the moment I will stop participating in it. I've had enough dry, rational, boring, PhD thesis-like discussions in my life to come here for another portion of the same.
LOL, don't take what I say too seriously, Slobodan.
In case you haven't noticed, I have quite a bit of fun "digressing" with snide remarks also (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
The truth is, sometimes it can be fun to do, while other times it is an annoyance (again, same as with real life). And, as with real life, it should be any man's call when he's had enough and to terminate the discussion with certain individuals.
This forum is a community, not a red-light district. You do not come to satisfy yourself, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am style, get what you've come here for, turn around and leave, without a good-bye or thank-you. At least in the red-light district you would pay for that "pleasure".
If you do come here with that "I got what I needed, screw you" attitude, rest assured that sooner or later there will be someone who will introduce you to the basic Newtonian laws of physics, namely action-reaction, and respond in kind, with with all those "snide, derisive, condescending" remarks. I will be the first one to volunteer.
LOL, again, you can't be talking about me bud, as I digress and engage as much as anyone.
But I honestly don't see why a person should be "forced" to digress or field a lot of bullship either. If a man wants to ask a question, and doesn't want to hear a lot of lip or sarcasm, why should he be "forced" to do so?
Why can't he simply ask his question, delete any wise-ass comments (if they pop up), and then only allow and address the people who earnestly try to help him? That doesn't make the man "thankless"; he might in fact be very thankful to those who are actually trying sincerely to help him.
Jack
.
-
... But I honestly don't see why a person should be "forced" to digress or field a lot of bullship either. If a man wants to ask a question, and doesn't want to hear a lot of lip or sarcasm, why should he be "forced" to do so?
Why can't he simply ask his question, delete any wise-ass comments (if they pop up), and then only allow and address the people who earnestly try to help him?...
Because community, like a relationship, is not a one-way street. It is a give-and-take. You can't just come here to take only, and cherry-pick as you do it. Things come in a package usually... good with bad... smart and silly. As Marilyn Monroe said "...if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”
And by the way, if you are really smart, you'll find nuggets of wisdom in the most snide of comments.
P.S. I usually use "you" in a rhetorical sense, not necessarily you specifically
-
[...cull the unwanted from your discussions while responding and appreciating only those who are helpful to you.
And there is where the problem lies. As forum sites are, for lack of a better word, public spaces, there are a lot of lurkers and members who peruse many of the new threads. As any topic is going to be interesting and relevant to at least a few other people than the OP, allowing an OP to selfishly lock or edit a thread denies those people information from which they may benefit.
Sure, as had been argued, another thread can be started, but that will only duplicate and replicate the thread that was locked, pushing the so-called offensive and unhelpful information somewhere else. So where is the benefit, other than to a single individual?
-
Better than letting the OP terminate a thread, I would like to see an "ignore this poster" button like the one the previous forum software had. I used it a couple of times when one forum member or another was getting on my nerves too much. My choosing to "ignore" someone had no effect on any other forum member, and I cound "un-ignore" at any time, or view individual posts If I wanted.
I liked that system.
Eric
-
The moment this forum is sanitized from all those "snide, derisive, condescending", out-of-the-left-field, quirky, etc. digressions... is the moment I will stop participating in it. I've had enough dry, rational, boring, PhD thesis-like discussions in my life to come here for another portion of the same.
This forum is a community, not a red-light district. You do not come to satisfy yourself, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am style, get what you've come here for, turn around and leave, without a good-bye or thank-you. At least in the red-light district you would pay for that "pleasure".
If you do come here with that "I got what I needed, screw you" attitude, rest assured that sooner or later there will be someone who will introduce you to the basic Newtonian laws of physics, namely action-reaction, and respond in kind, with with all those "snide, derisive, condescending" remarks. I will be the first one to volunteer.
Hear, hear! Slobodan. The minute we have to start beating around the bush is the point at which the forum dies.
-
Because community, like a relationship, is not a one-way street. It is a give-and-take. You can't just come here to take only, and cherry-pick as you do it. Things come in a package usually... good with bad... smart and silly. As Marilyn Monroe said "...if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”
Even within a community, there still remain those people you choose not to deal with.
Just think about it, do you let everyone within your area into your home? Do you enjoy the input of everyone in your community to your personal questions? (I didn't think so.)
The truth is, even within a community, certain restrictions apply :D
And by the way, if you are really smart, you'll find nuggets of wisdom in the most snide of comments.
P.S. I usually use "you" in a rhetorical sense, not necessarily you specifically
PS: Even you have to realize that not every snide remark carries wisdom ... and I use "you" rhetorically also (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
And there is where the problem lies. As forum sites are, for lack of a better word, public spaces, there are a lot of lurkers and members who peruse many of the new threads. As any topic is going to be interesting and relevant to at least a few other people than the OP, allowing an OP to selfishly lock or edit a thread denies those people information from which they may benefit.
Sure, as had been argued, another thread can be started, but that will only duplicate and replicate the thread that was locked, pushing the so-called offensive and unhelpful information somewhere else. So where is the benefit, other than to a single individual?
Which is wherein the benefit of being able to selectively delete "posts" would be even more helpful, actually, than having to lock-up an entire thread.
Suppose 15 people were contributing positively to one of your threads. Suppose further that 2 people were being wise-asses on that same thread and kinda ruining the climate. If (as things are now) you "locked" the entire thread, you thereby ruin the exchange between yourself and the 15 contributing members. However, if (as I have suggested) you had the power, as the originator of the thread, to merely delete the wise-ass posts from the 2 jerks, then you could rid yourself of the unwanted chaff ... while still keeping things going between yourself and the other members who are contributing in earnest (as well as provide more interesting material for the silent lurkers).
Jack
.
-
Hear, hear! Slobodan. The minute we have to start beating around the bush is the point at which the forum dies.
No one suggested beating around the bush.
What is being suggested is that it really is possible for a person to directly answer a question, with all sincerity, without a offering single snide or disparaging remark ... and ... that it should also be possible for a person to be able to cull any snide remarks from his own thread, if he doesn't want them around.
Jack
.
-
Baloney, Jack. Often the snide remarks go right to the target. They're an integral part of heated exchanges. You, of all people, ought to know that.
-
Baloney, Jack.
No Baloney Russ: it's the truth.
Often the snide remarks go right to the target. They're an integral part of heated exchanges. You, of all people, ought to know that.
Won't deny that Russ, and we agree here; but often snide remarks serve no purpose at all.
We both agree that snide remarks with merit can be interesting and can thereby enhance a discussion ... whereas snide remarks without merit are nothing but detractors of a discussion.
I am sure we can agree on that.
Jack
.
-
Personally, I think it would be great if the originator of the thread also could delete individual comments that he doesn't like on his thread... .
Jack
Just to be clear, Jack, do you mean that the originator of a thread should be free to delete any post that the originator chooses? So, for example, if I were to start a thread where I say that X is the best product ever, I should be able to delete any post that disagrees? If not, but only some posts that meet some criteria, then who decides what meets that criteria, me? As you can see, I’m skeptical that allowing originators of threads to have such editorial power would be good or workable.
-
... it really is possible for a person to directly answer a question, with all sincerity, without a offering single snide or disparaging remark ...
You know... I've been trying it all my life... with little success ;D
-
Just to be clear, Jack, do you mean that the originator of a thread should be free to delete any post that the originator chooses? So, for example, if I were to start a thread where I say that X is the best product ever, I should be able to delete any post that disagrees? If not, but only some posts that meet some criteria, then who decides what meets that criteria, me? As you can see, I’m skeptical that allowing originators of threads to have such editorial power would be good or workable.
First of all, you're confounding the deletion of hazing posts with the suppression of free thinking.
Yet even still, to directly answer your question, sure, if you originated a thread on some product and were afraid of hearing dissenting opinions--and wanted to hide these legitimate opinons of others--then by all means you should be able to delete that person from your own thread (same as you could say, "Buzz off!" to a person in real life who intruded upon your private conversation).
Of course, a consequence of that kind of action would be that others in the forum would see you as weak and unable to bear such honest opinions. Further, the people whom you deleted could make a decision to initiate their own threads, where more free thinking was allowed, and as this dissenting thread grew in its own right the neutral bystander could then make up his own mind as to whose reasoning and thinking he wanted to go with.
So, in the end, yes, I believe anyone should have the right to choose the parties he converses with ... and I also think most of us here could distinguish between deleting a wiseacre from a thread and deleting an honest, but different, opinion.
Jack
.
-
You know... I've been trying it all my life... with little success ;D
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
We both agree that snide remarks with merit can be interesting and can thereby enhance a discussion ... whereas snide remarks without merit are nothing but detractors of a discussion.
I am sure we can agree on that.
Jack
The problem is, Jack, who should decide whether or not a snide remark has merit? Should the person who starts a thread be allowed to impose his/her own biases and prejudices in a manner which might prevent the discussion leading on to something that others might find useful, revealing or interesting?
For example, supposing the original poster owned a small business selling Canon cameras, and the particular thread was leading in the direction of snide remarks about low-noise performance of Canon DSLRs in general, then it might make good sense for the original poster to lock the thread.
However, the oringal poster always has the option of ceasing to contribute to the thread or even cease viewing it. Shouldn't that be sufficient?
-
The problem is, Jack, who should decide whether or not a snide remark has merit?
As previously mentioned, the original poster :D
Should the person who starts a thread be allowed to impose his/her own biases and prejudices in a manner which might prevent the discussion leading on to something that others might find useful, revealing or interesting?
Yes. After all, don't moderators essentially do the same thing Ray, namely close threads that others might find interesting?
There is no perfect world, but (of all people) I would imagine that the original poster has the most right to guide his thread the way he sees fit. And, if not him, then the moderator. Either way, the arbitrariness is the same.
Again, if a particular individual repeately proves to be too controlling of his discussions, then he will quickly lose his audience. By contrast, the more open-minded and sincere he a person is, and the more openly he entertains different views, the more respect he will gain. As previously mentioned, the consequence of unreasonable censorship by anyone is distrust of his viewers, so each OP would have to use his censorship power with that in mind.
But again, "censorship" is not the same thing as giving wise-asses the boot ;D
Finally, even if the power of censorship gets misused on occasion, I don't think anyone will suffer too much if "an interesting thread" gets locked (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
For example, supposing the original poster owned a small business selling Canon cameras, and the particular thread was leading in the direction of snide remarks about low-noise performance of Canon DSLRs in general, then it might make good sense for the original poster to lock the thread.
I disagree. I think it would make good sense for the store owner to honestly concede the weaknesses of his product, while standing firm on its strengths. Evasion will never help anyone in the long run, IMO, whereas honestly admitting flaws ... while just as honestly standing firm on strengths ... breeds trust.
The truth is, how a person handled this kind of power and control would go a long way into showing people "who" that person really is, deep down ;)
However, the oringal poster always has the option of ceasing to contribute to the thread or even cease viewing it. Shouldn't that be sufficient?
In some cases, that is sufficient. For example, I have asked for help on threads, gotten it, thanked people for it, and then watched the threads take a life of their own ... and walked away and never looked back. On other threads, however, it would have been nice to just "delete" a few assholes from them (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
First of all, you're confounding the deletion of hazing posts with the suppression of free thinking.
Jack
Jack, your original statement was "Personally, I think it would be great if the originator of the thread also could delete individual comments that he doesn't like on his thread... ." (emphasis added) Neither you nor I said anything about "hazing or "suppression of free thinking". You seem to be attributing to me subjects that I never mentioned and you did not mention when you first set forth your proposition. Therefore, it seems that your accusing me of confounding hazing and suppression is out of line.
Nevertheless, I think understand your position. I happen to disagree.
-
Quote John.
Correction: wankers like you wouldn't be on my threads Wink
Quote John
What is being suggested is that it really is possible for a person to directly answer a question, with all sincerity, without a offering single snide or disparaging remark ..
Unquote John
Perhaps you could try and practice what you preach? Now where is that button for deleting posters? :P
-
Quote John.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Quote John
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx..
Unquote John
Don't you think it's a bit daft to go through the trouble of typing-out "Quote John" xxx "Unquote John," when you could just use the quote feature and achieve the same thing instantly (and have it look better too)?
Perhaps you could try and practice what you preach? Now where is that button for deleting posters? :P
Two things: 1) Saying something "is possible" is not the same thing as saying "I always do this," and 2) my very response to you has proven you agree with my premise, where you originally rejected it.
The fact that you're now groping for the "delete" button ... on a thread you originated, first stating that threads should not be able to be locked by the original poster, then chastising me for suggesting individual posts be able to be removed ... essentially concedes my point.
So thank you for that, my work is done :P
Jack
.
-
So thank you for that, my work is done Tongue
Jack
Jack...or is it John? It seems you have a dual personality - or more than two - as well as the ability to dance on the head of a pin with clogs on. Judging from your last post you also seem smugly happy with your contributions to the thread, despite some obvious contradictions. :) Eric bemoaned the fact that there was no longer an ignore list available. If there was I am sure you would be at the top of everyone's list judging by the amount of members you have happily flamed. Have a nice day.
-
So thank you for that, my work is done Tongue
Jack
Still haven't figured out how to use the quote feature, eh Stamper?
But at least you dropped the added baggage of actually writing the quotes out (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack...or is it John?
Legally, it's John, but I go by Jack. Is this confusing to you also?
If so, maybe it will help if I remind you that some people are named "Robert" on their birth certificates, but go by the name "Bob" in conversation.
Look up the word "nickname" and see if the concept sinks in after several re-reads ...
It seems you have a dual personality - or more than two - as well as the ability to dance on the head of a pin with clogs on. Judging from your last post you also seem smugly happy with your contributions to the thread, despite some obvious contradictions. :)
No contradictions, sir, just your inability to understand two separate concepts at once.
"All truth contains paradox."
~ M. Scott Peck, M.D.
Eric bemoaned the fact that there was no longer an ignore list available. If there was I am sure you would be at the top of everyone's list judging by the amount of members you have happily flamed.
I have always liked Eric and have always appreciated his kind comments on my posts, as well as his insightful (and often humorous) comments on other matters ;)
Have a nice day.
I've had a great day so far, thank you. I've taken 120 nature photos already this morning, including a 10-stack montage of a stunning sphinx moth I came across (the final image of which I hope to contribute later).
I am now enjoying a Samuel Adams' DoubleBock brew as I review and work with my images, after having a gorgeous walk in the woods with my girl, after a light rainfall.
Hope your day is going just as well (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
-
what was all that BS earlier about wanting to eliminate snide remarks?
-
what was all that BS earlier about wanting to eliminate snide remarks?
Forget snide, how about eliminating space and bandwidth-hogging remarks? ;D
-
what was all that BS earlier about wanting to eliminate snide remarks?
"The common man can only argue one side of the coin; the educated man can argue both sides with equal aplomb."
~ Guess Who :D
________________________________
________________________________
Forget snide, how about eliminating space and bandwidth-hogging remarks? ;D
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
I have always liked Eric and have always appreciated his kind comments on my posts, as well as his insightful (and often humorous) comments on other matters ;)
Me too! :D
Eric
-
Right, Jack. Eric doesn't even know what a snide remark is.
-
Forget snide, how about eliminating space and bandwidth-hogging remarks? ;D
+1 ... some people can get to the point ... and some people seem to have trouble being parsimonious with their words ...
-
Right, Jack. Eric doesn't even know what a snide remark is.
Well, Russ, I do now. I just looked it up in the "Urban Dictionary" and found this:
"Sneering, malicious, sly, critical, derisive remark
That snide remark does not become you in the least bit.
buy snide remark mugs & shirts
sneering malicious sly critical derisive."
'Nuff said. ::)
Eric
P.S. Now if I can find a reference for "Off topic...
-
Okay, Eric, but I've never seen you make a snide remark. Glad you looked it up. Now you'll know what it is when Slobodan or Jack makes one. Of course I'd never make one, so you don't have to watch me like you watch them.
-
Russ,
I'm considering buying a snide remark mug or shirt, so I'll be even less tempted to make a snide remark.
For you experts, does this famous quotation from Mad magazine (many years ago) fit the definition: "It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide?"
Eric
-
what was all that BS earlier about wanting to eliminate snide remarks?
One of Jacks/Johns - or whoever he is - little contradictions. ;D
-
The original poster isn't the only one that can lock threads.
This one is fully cooked.
Michael