banned

[David Mantripp]

Tragedy. After maybe 15 years I've been summarily, permanently banned from DPReview, for the heinous crime of writing "switch it off, ffs", in a post commenting on their introduction of autoplay ads on the home page.

I'm not exactly devastated.   I gave up hoping for any kind of dialog over there ages ago.  But considering the kind of behaviour that goes on on those forums, I am pretty astonished that a mild bit of very naughty language like "ffs" gets a permanent ban. 

Of course if it were introduced here, it might make the Adobe Lightrrom Q&A forum a bit less irritating to read 

[David Anderson]

Their boards are nuts.
So much rubbish, so little actual knowledge.

[Justinr]

DPreview, so many thousands of pages saying pretty much the same thing. Is there honestly a camera you wouldn't buy after reading their views upon it? I recommended a P&S to a friend on the back of what they had said, it turned out to be crap. (does that word get me banned here?)

[jjj]

Tragedy. After maybe 15 years I've been summarily, permanently banned from DPReview, for the heinous crime of writing "switch it off, ffs", in a post commenting on their introduction of autoplay ads on the home page.

If forums ban swearing, usually masked swearing is seen as the same thing and also not permitted. Which makes perfect sense as people will read masked swearing or acronyms like 'ffs' exactly as if the 'naughty words were in place.  Is swearing verboten on DPR?

Personally I find the idea that some people find a word/sound offensive a bit bizarre. Same goes for nudity, how is that or say breast feeding offensive? And how do such people cope with animals wandering around with no clothes on and with all their danglies or what not on show? 

Of course if it were introduced here, it might make the Adobe Lightrrom Q&A forum a bit less irritating to read 

You can be an offensive muppet without any bad language being used and perfectly pleasant whilst being a potty mouth.

[tnargs]

There is no place for swearing in online forums, including 'masked' swearing, 'acronymious' swearing or abbreviated swearing.

It makes communal places thoroughly unpleasant.

The fact that one can be unpleasant without swearing is irrelevant, except to illustrate that swearing is not the only reason to ban.

[Jeremy Roussak]

There is no place for swearing in online forums, including 'masked' swearing, 'acronymious' swearing or abbreviated swearing.

Nonsense. Define "swearing", then, and do it without recourse to any vague posturing on consensus. There was a furore when Shaw wrote "bloody" for Eliza: it's impossible to imagine anyone seriously taking offence at that word now.

The use of language alters over time. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Jeremy

[tnargs]

I know there are rational arguments either way. But the bottom line remains: given a choice of upsetting many readers or not, which do you choose? Forum owners have to take into account that you might be upsetting many people with your 'free' and 'conventional' swearing. And take into account that you freely choose to upset them.

[Rob C]

I know there are rational arguments either way. But the bottom line remains: given a choice of upsetting many readers or not, which do you choose? Forum owners have to take into account that you might be upsetting many people with your 'free' and 'conventional' swearing. And take into account that you freely choose to upset them.

They freely choose to be upset.

I've often wondered about the worries about nudity. Considering that all of humankind is split into two basic shapes, it remains a surprise that that can be shocking news.

However, as so many of either two types are visually disgusting, I do see a sort of need to protect the other, the 'beautiful' lot, from visual shock, from the bad news of what probably awaits them, too, if they live that long or are not careful enough...

Rob C

[Otto Phocus]

That's OK.  I was banned from Petapixel (oh the shame) for pointing out that they make no attempt to conduct the most cursory proofreading of the articles they publish.

[tnargs]

They freely choose to be upset.

I've often wondered about the worries about nudity. Considering that all of humankind is split into two basic shapes, it remains a surprise that that can be shocking news.

However, as so many of either two types are visually disgusting, I do see a sort of need to protect the other, the 'beautiful' lot, from visual shock, from the bad news of what probably awaits them, too, if they live that long or are not careful enough...

Rob C

You seem to be one of those rational debaters to whom I referred. That's okay: I understand both sides.

The thing about polite and civil interaction is that even the meek, the shy and easily upset among us are made to feel welcome and comfortable. It might take some self-restraint but it isn't actually hard.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

[BobDavid]

I was banned a few months back for challenging editorial decisions.

[tnargs]

The one thing about LL rules that I wish were different is the bit that says "We advise that you use your real First & Last name as your on-screen or user name. Forum users who hide behind anonymous or false on-screen names and who make inflammatory posts or ad hominem attacks will be banned. Members using pseudonyms will receive stricter treatment than those using their own name." (my bold bits are the bits I disagree with)

To me, that is an unacceptable and anti humanitarian piece of advice.

The universal and appropriate advice given to anybody who is about to establish themselves a presence on the Internet, is to do so anonymously.

Reasons include identity theft, stalking and bullying, personal threats to safety, and having one's career compromised by the many, many employers who make it their business to Google their employees and have no compunction about treating them with prejudice for simple things, such as the choice of hobbies and interests outside of work.

For LL to discriminate against people who make the right choices for their own safety and for their families, is ridiculous. If site owners and mods have just been lucky, and not (yet) been hurt by using their own name, then don't use that luck as a weapon to make judgments against the intention of other people. I resent it. My advice to anyone joining an internet forum, is to do so anonymously. For their sake and their families'.

Anyhow, members can join with a fake First & Last name, who would know? Yet they get less moderation for it.

[john beardsworth]

The one thing about LL rules that I wish were different is the bit that says "We advise that you use your real First & Last name as your on-screen or user name. Forum users who hide behind anonymous or false on-screen names and who make inflammatory posts or ad hominem attacks will be banned. Members using pseudonyms will receive stricter treatment than those using their own name."

That seems fair enough. Some of us would happily do without contributions from those who hide their identity (except for good reasons), but we've had discussions on the topic, there's no consensus, and those posters' greater likelihood to misbehave is reflected in how the forum is managed.

[Rob C]

I think that LuLa has it about right. Anti-humanitarian? Does anyone actually speak like that in the real world? I thought it the province of the politician and banner-waving street nutter.

It isn't about using your real name as much as about what you reveal. And, of course, just how much important stuff you put out via Internet.

I don't even bank via Internet, depite the banks' repeated requests I do so. Why Not? Initially because of instinctive distrust of the web, and then one day, out of extreme boredom, I actually read the fine print of those proposal forms right through to the yawn-inducing end. And I'm glad that I did! In a nutshell: unless you have installed the best, latest and most effective security shields on your computer, you are swimming in the Red Sea with sharks and dead divers insofar as the banks' willingness to absolve you from sin.

The moment you decide to have a website you are open to the usual nutcase mail that sours the web. Even here on LuLa you'll find the presistent idiot who knows not a lot about much but, unfortunately, isn't aware of the paucity of that knowledge. Make the tactical error of engaging him out of politeness and he will detroy the perceived pleasures of communication. Every stone harbours one such at least; it goes with the territory.

People keep trying to get me to join Fbook etc. and can't understand that I can have zero interest in engaging with people I don't know, that one can, in fact, already know too many people, fail to grasp the fact that I seek nothing from anyone other than the sharing of some few common interests; time is precious and in ever shortening supply for each and every single one of us.

What to do? Logically, you take as much as you feel like taking, try to balance the good with the not so good, and then quit if the weight shifts too far in the wrong direction. As it sometimes does.

Getting banned? There are always at least two sides/opinions to situations and where the truth lies is anyone's guess. Your fate can depend on whether the chap with the key has indigestion when he has your 'case' pushed into his face.

And in the end, does anyone else give a shit; do you, yourself, really care? Man, these little islands on which we float..

Rob C

[jjj]

People keep trying to get me to join Fbook etc. and can't understand that I can have zero interest in engaging with people I don't know, that one can, in fact, already know too many people, fail to grasp the fact that I seek nothing from anyone other than the sharing of some few common interests; time is precious and in ever shortening supply for each and every single one of us.

You do realise Facebook is for engaging with people you do know and privacy can be set so that no-one else sees anything.
Yes you can see or interact with other people on public pages like the LuLa FB page, but you do not have to engage. FB is an excellent tool I find for keeping in touch with friends and family I have all over the world or indeed friends I have that are scattered across the UK and I don't have to put up with morons posting their [usually anonymous] brainless/bigoted crap like you do on forums at times.

Like John, I would love to see anonymous people binned from places like LuLa. They are the ones who tend to be the most disruptive and contribute the least.
There is very, very rarely a genuine reason for anyone on a site like this one to hide their identity. It is a site about photographic techniques after all. It is not a political site, it's not risque or anything subversive.

[jjj]

The one thing about LL rules that I wish were different is the bit that says "We advise that you use your real First & Last name as your on-screen or user name. Forum users who hide behind anonymous or false on-screen names and who make inflammatory posts or ad hominem attacks will be banned. Members using pseudonyms will receive stricter treatment than those using their own name." (my bold bits are the bits I disagree with)

To me, that is an unacceptable and anti humanitarian piece of advice.

The universal and appropriate advice given to anybody who is about to establish themselves a presence on the Internet, is to do so anonymously.

Reasons include identity theft, stalking and bullying, personal threats to safety, and having one's career compromised by the many, many employers who make it their business to Google their employees and have no compunction about treating them with prejudice for simple things, such as the choice of hobbies and interests outside of work.

For LL to discriminate against people who make the right choices for their own safety and for their families, is ridiculous. If site owners and mods have just been lucky, and not (yet) been hurt by using their own name, then don't use that luck as a weapon to make judgments against the intention of other people. I resent it. My advice to anyone joining an internet forum, is to do so anonymously. For their sake and their families'.

Anyhow, members can join with a fake First & Last name, who would know? Yet they get less moderation for it.

If one's family or jobs get compromised by things you post on a website like LuLa, maybe one should really, really consider what is posted.

[stamper]

Quote jjj


Like John, I would love to see anonymous people binned from places like LuLa. They are the ones who tend to be the most disruptive and contribute the least.

Unquote

I don't see your real name???

[jjj]

Quote jjj


Like John, I would love to see anonymous people binned from places like LuLa. They are the ones who tend to be the most disruptive and contribute the least.

Unquote

I don't see your real name???

I was waiting for the usual idiotic comment like that. Unsurprisingly from an actual anonymous muppet.
I'm not anonymous. jjj is a contraction of a real world nickname and my profile links to my site with my name and contact details.
I'd used it for so long before real names started being used on here, I saw no point in changing it. Particularly as there are numerous others with the same name as myself.
My name isn't that common I find, but nearly everyone I've met with the same name in real life is also a photographer oddly enough [I don't mean hobbyist] and it seems to frequently appear in numerous photography forums but not other places. Weird. 

[stamper]

I was waiting for the usual idiotic comment like that. Unsurprisingly from an actual anonymous muppet.
I'm not anonymous. jjj is a contraction of a real world nickname and my profile links to my site with my name and contact details.
I'd used it for so long before real names started being used on here, I saw no point in changing it. Particularly as there are numerous others with the same name as myself.
My name isn't that common I find, but nearly everyone I've met with the same name in real life is also a photographer oddly enough [I don't mean hobbyist] and it seems to frequently appear in numerous photography forums but not other places. Weird. 

If you click on my signature you will see a link that states my name so I am not an actual anonymous muppet.

[jjj]

My apologies, just a muppet then.