Who are you?

yes

28 (47.5%)

no

31 (52.5%)

Total Members Voted: 59

Voting closed: September 17, 2019, 02:33:06 pm

[KLaban]

I am on the side of the current approach of moderation, warnings, suspensions, bans and such. Merely asking for real names would not necessarily get them; demanding evidence of ID (the LL Border Patrol?) like links to a personal website would be a significant barrier and deterrent to new participants, the problem is not so great as to need it ... and the most recent obnoxious behavior I know of involved a "real name" participant.

For a touch of paranoia, it has happened elsewhere that angry people and trolls exploit real ID information in internet forums to harass "enemy" posters elsewhere. (Worst case: swatting.)

Yours,

    "Bruce" Jun-fan Lee (maybe)

I agree with much you say.

I'm keen on real names simply because I like to know who I'm speaking to.

Yours,

Jeremy Roussak

;-)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I agree with much you say.

I'm keen on real names simply because I like to know who I'm speaking to.

Yours,

Jeremy Roussak

;-)

Ha! And I always thought your real name was Henry Fox Talbot! 

Yours,

-Louis Daguerre.

[Rob C]

Warning: off-topic.

Not about first and last names, but about photography, or more specifically interest in photography, from a personal experience perspective.

When I was much younger, back in the '80s, I had a small group of friends very much into photography. All Canon guys. Two were what we would call gearheads, one was more of a classical artist, oil painting and graphics. The gearheads had all kind of exotic glass (at the time), like 17mm super-wide angle and 300/2.8 telephoto. Most of their photographs, if they were bothered to shoot, were to demonstrate a particular advantage of the lens. But I digress. The point I am trying to make: it was hard to get hold of those things in then-socialist Yugoslavia. Yes, we had a Canon representative office, but prices were astronomical, due to import duties. So, how did we get all those? Classifieds. It was surprising what you could find in those. And how cheaply, sometimes. You see, having a good camera was the flavor of the day, a matter of prestige, object of desire, so those who traveled abroad would buy it and bring it back.  And then, sort of suddenly, the supply via classifieds dwindled significantly. Amateur video cameras showed up, and became all the rage. Classifieds were full of them. True photography remained a niche domain. For diehards.

Something similar is happening today. Digital isn't new anymore. Once again, video is getting more popular than stills (arguably). But it isn't just the popularity of video. We are simply drowning in photography. Gazillions of bad photography, average photography. But also gazillions of good photography, spectacular photography. We've become desensitized to it. Even to the spectacular ones. Especially to the spectacular ones. What is left to say, in terms of commenting on published photographs, after seeing so many similar photographs? Iceland was initially all the rage, due to its novelty, and since then it has been inundated with tourists, and we inundated with images of it. The same with Antarctica. Or Cuba.

The skills necessary until recently to deliver a decent (technically) photograph, not to mention spectacular, have shifted from photographer to the camera (or even phone). What took me days in Photoshop earlier can now be achieved in a single iPhone shot. It is not even "f/8 and be there." It is just "be there" these days. All it takes for Instagram "influencers," whatever that is, is to be there, at an exotic location, or in a stupidly daring activity. They don't even know what f/8 is, nor they care. Perhaps rightly so.

Once again, it is diehards only.

Beautifully written, and on the money.

The photographer that Peter writes about is an exception; he may or may not be found here on LuLa, but I'm fairly sure he's the odd man out, and as such, not of enough critical mass to keep a forum this size going. It needs to accept all sorts of photographers, just to keep active, and there arises the problem that I think we have, and Slobodan outlined: how on Earth can interest in readers' photos ever be enough to fill the pages with comment and photography we want to read and see?

Oscar has a neat little site of his ongoing work, as does Keith and as do others. It is always going to be more rewarding to sit down over a coffee or even, as do I, during lunches and look at the work in peace and without the distraction of ongoing discussions of any kind. Seeing the now and then image published here elicits comment, but that's not the same experience as soaking up somebody's style and outlook on the discipline - you need a body of work to appreciate that, though as has been mentioned, some photographers do make it easy to spot their work in solitude.

It's been pointed out that even this particular thread has drifted from its original topic; indeed, but that's how conversation goes, develops and keeps interesting enough to keep people engaged enough to type something.

I'd say that Keith's little signature joke proves the point he's making: names are no more any guarantee of anything than avatars. Only the backup of a personal website can make it fairly sure to be what it claims on the can. Why would anyone bother making a website just to name it after somebody else? If it's going to get sny glory, better that go where it belongs. Non?

Rob

[Chris Kern]

Warning: off-topic.
. . .
Once again, it is diehards only.

Beautifully written, and on the money.

I never say "+1," but +1.

It's been pointed out that even this particular thread has drifted from its original topic; indeed, but that's how conversation goes, develops and keeps intetesting enough to keep people engaged enough to type something.

Have I mentioned that I never say "+1"?  But +1.

I would prefer real names (or links to websites that identify the author of a post, which serve as proxies thereof).  I also believe knowing where someone is posting from is important.  One of the best attributes of this site is its international character.

[TechTalk]

In the (almost certainly vain) hope that it might improve levels of courtesy on the site, I am considering introducing a requirement that anyone who posts on any forum at LuLa must reveal his or her true name in the post, either as his or her forum name or in the signature. There is, I gather, at least anecdotal evidence that obnoxious behaviour is reduced when anonymity is withdrawn.

This referendum is strictly advisory.

Jeremy

I for one would not post under my own name for a variety of reasons.

First, because it's the internet. Although I have zero social media presence and this is the only place online where I have ever posted comments of any kind, I certainly see commentary everywhere I look online. YouTube, news sites, you name it, commentary is everywhere online and it routinely becomes hostile when some commentors have their assertions challenged or corrected. I'm much more comfortable having any hostility directed at my pseudonym than at me personally. I'm not interested in having online discussions that are personal in nature.

Second, I haven't had anything directed at me that was over the top, but I have received replies that were at least a bit hostile in their tone. And that's enough for me to remain anonymous or quit posting.

Third, I personally knew someone that was fired for their online comments on a forum. And rightfully so, although I did have some sympathy for that person losing their employment. They just couldn't help themselves from using their name and mentioning their employer as if that would lend any credibility to what was posted. It reflected poorly on the employer and after being warned, they continued to do so, and got the boot.

Fourth, the rare vague hostility in tone in replies I have received have, to the best of my recollection, been from people whose identities were known. So, I don't see the point in requiring real names.

Finally, it does not seem to improve the validity of any of the comments made. So again, I don't see the point in requiring real names.

Some see moderation on forums as censorship. I do not. I think forum owners have a right to decide what is acceptable in tone and what is not. But, I would encourage the moderation be based on tone and not real identity.

[armand]

This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.

Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.

Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.

[Rob C]

This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.

Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.

Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.

Behind the curtain... like the products that corner shops used to sell to you from beneath the counter?

No thanks; I rather buy in the open without that feeling of implied guilt.

Took years to get over the feeling that buying a pack of Durex in the chemist's shop was an act of extraordinary naughtiness, and shameful. I know people who unwillingly grew a collection of toothbrushes.

Rob

[jeremyrh]

This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.

Now there’s an idea. Be a moderator. Or be a forum member.

Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections)

True but I’d like to imagine that there are readers who don’t participate who benefit from the material provided in the course of the bickering.

[Rob C]

This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.

Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.

Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.

And you don't think the moderation is fair?

If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.

That politics is a rabbit hole, I have to agree; but hey, people enjoy investigating holes.

Rob

[jeremyrh]

And you don't think the moderation is fair?

If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.

I thought about replying but then decided not to. Maybe that is a reply in itself?

[armand]

And you don't think the moderation is fair?

If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.

That politics is a rabbit hole, I have to agree; but hey, people enjoy investigating holes.

Rob

Based on what I read, which is limited, I felt a nuance of similar behaviors being addressed intermittently. I don't know the entire history and maybe I got the wrong impression but I think our human nature makes very difficult to be an active participant in discussions and moderate it at the same time. What I meant by "EQUALLY" is to do it to every time it happens, regardless if some people do it more than others.

Behind the curtain... like the products that corner shops used to sell to you from beneath the counter?

No thanks; I rather buy in the open without that feeling of implied guilt.

Took years to get over the feeling that buying a pack of Durex in the chemist's shop was an act of extraordinary naughtiness, and shameful. I know people who unwillingly grew a collection of toothbrushes.

Rob

Toothbrushes don't expire, do they? I thought I wrote clearly that behind the curtain means you have to have an account and be logged in to see the discussion.

True but I’d like to imagine that there are readers who don’t participate who benefit from the material provided in the course of the bickering.

The more it goes the ratio of quality information vs bickering goes down to the point of not being very tempting.



Listen, I get it that some of you have fun there. But it's becoming obvious that you aren't that many and what you enjoy risks keeping newbies at bay, I thought that's the reason for this poll. I rarely read the Coffee corner; I have to bite my tongue almost every time. People go there to say the others are wrong, and it goes in circles until it escalates to the point of needing moderation.


PS. As somebody who stayed out of these discussion I get a distinct feeling that the animosities developed there cross the borders into all other discussions, including strictly photo related. I don't think most people get over what is being said there to leave it there.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Conjectures, conjectures.

[Rob C]

Conjectures, conjectures.

Always better than facts!

Actually, it's hard to think of situations where arguments in CC - even very heated ones - have had a carry-over effect. Mostly, there are few posts in other threads from some of the main debaters. Photos are not always the first intetest, even though I think everybody who debates does at least some photography.

The thing is, with the best will in the world, what the hell is there to say about photos that has not been said a million times about a million snaps?

Once in a rare blue moon one sees an exceptional image posted, but it's the very ratity that makes those few stand out. What's can one remark about the rest that isn't just kindness or politeness?

As I mentioned yesterday about one of Russ' photos: it was better - in my opinion - than anything I saw in the UK September Vogue I just bought out of respect for the late Peter Lindbergh. That is really saying something: if Vogue strikes me as listless and stale, what chance the rest of us?

Rob

[armand]

These are my thoughts while being an outsider to all those discussions. You'll do with this info as you please.

[Brad P]

I often miss greatly Michael’s influence on this site.  I miss his sense of “This is how I do it” and how he held his own even in the face of Jeff Schewe.  Alas, in those days, life was simpler and more at peace.  A bit anyways. 

I miss the old pay per view videos of Mike and Jeff standing toe to toe too. 

I don’t know where this is all going, but from my point of view the LL forum is and always has been the most interesting.  Aside from a few extraordinary wonderful insights into photography from Mike and Jeff, the should be greats.   

[Rob C]

I often miss greatly Michael’s influence on this site.  I miss his sense of “This is how I do it” and how he held his own even in the face of Jeff Schewe.  Alas, in those days, life was simpler and more at peace.  A bit anyways. 

I miss the old pay per view videos of Mike and Jeff standing toe to toe too. 

I don’t know where this is all going, but from my point of view the LL forum is and always has been the most interesting.  Aside from a few extraordinary wonderful insights into photography from Mike and Jeff, the should be greats.   

Which is true, but off-topic, in that I might be led to believe you are the Brad of Anglina fame. Do you see what I mean?

Life is tough and often brings massive disappointment. Imagine, if you can, the spiritual loss of identity in looking at that always amazing guy in the mirror once you've had your cataracts removed (from your eyes).

:-(

[Brad P]

Rob C  (who seems to be a troll) has not given up his last name, per the OP.

I stand by my words.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Rob C  (who seems to be a troll) has not given up his last name, per the OP.

Rob Campbell's surname is readily ascertainable from his web site, the link to which appears in the signature of every message he posts.

The utility of the description "troll" is not enhanced by indiscriminate use as a term of abuse.

Jeremy

[Brad P]

Rob Campbell's surname is readily ascertainable from his web site, the link to which appears in the signature of every message he posts.

The utility of the description "troll" is not enhanced by indiscriminate use as a term of abuse.

Jeremy

A point, but not at all obvious or relevant. If you don’t see abuse in the above, sign me off immediately. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

A point, but not at all obvious or relevant. If you don’t see abuse in the above, sign me off immediately.

I don't. You are, I suspect, over-sensitively mistaking for "abuse" both gentle teasing arising from your forum name and sardonic self-denigration from a man who has very recently undergone surgery for removal of cataracts.

Your description of Rob as a troll is more abusive than anything he has written.

Jeremy