Who are you?

yes

28 (47.5%)

no

31 (52.5%)

Total Members Voted: 59

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Almost everyone who participates in the political debates posts under their full names or has their web site in signature. So, what are we really discussing here?

[Manoli]

I can think of not a single persistent poster, irrespective of their ‘handle’, who disguises their true identity.
If one wishes to reduce incivility, less bombast and braggadocio wouldn’t go amiss.

Whether you called yourself Kikashi or Jeremy Roussak I surmise made little difference to your personal standards and even less to the qualitative input on this site.

[Manoli]

Get rid of politics in any form.

And wasn’t that such a resounding success last time?

Edit:

Go back a few years and read some of the old threads. It wasn’t politics, more current affairs - everything from hi-fi , wine, the Canadian health service and more. In fact some of the biggest (and more entertaining) bust-ups were both pro and photography related.

I won’t even mention the threads on RAW V DNG.
Good old days , when humour wasn’t drowned in male testosterone.

[Kevin Gallagher]

 I've always used my real name and only do "screen names" if the site(s) ask for one. I am also in the let's return to no more political posts group.

[Rob C]

About the only thing this will accomplish is fewer postings. 

Get rid of politics in any form.

Victor

Good idea!

And then get rid of members' pictures too: you just know how controversial those can be, and it's only ego-tripping anyway.

Nothing beats a forum full of commercial advertising videos and makers' reviews of their latest and greatest cameras, lenses, tripods and crocodile leather bags. Never forget the thrill of courses, and mentors willing to take you on them for a little exchange of lucre, filthy or otherwise - who cares?

Some sites will actually grant you a review of your work and help you get into art galleries where you will soon meet international investors/fine-art collectors! Wow! I just love this Internet, don't you? So much opportunity to turn a buck learn!

[Rob C]

In answer to the original concept of this thread, how come nobody answered "Polly Maggoo!"? Have all the girls left?

;-(

[digitaldog]

A site, presumably dedicated to photography can and should be able to run without political posts.
A site, presumably dedicated to photography should allow 'members' pictures.

[Jonathan Cross]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course.  To me the issue is how that opinion is expressed.  IMHO I cannot understand why the expression of an opinion means that it is OK to use obnoxious language.  It is a complete turnoff to me.  I do not know what the use of such language says about the user's communication skills.  As for pseudonyms, that is something else I do not understand.  Are we back in the 18th and 19th Century when women had to write under a male pseudonym in order to be heard, or is it that such use allows people to say things they would not say as a real person?

I hope this scores low on the obnoxious scale.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[KLaban]

Good idea!

And then get rid of members' pictures too: you just know how controversial those can be, and it's only ego-tripping anyway.

Nothing beats a forum full of commercial advertising videos and makers' reviews of their latest and greatest cameras, lenses, tripods and crocodile leather bags. Never forget the thrill of courses, and mentors willing to take you on them for a little exchange of lucre, filthy or otherwise - who cares?

Some sites will actually grant you a review of your work and help you get into art galleries where you will soon meet international investors/fine-art collectors! Wow! I just love this Internet, don't you? So much opportunity to turn a buck learn!

Rob, as far as I'm concerned the more controversial the pictures the better and I prefer to think of posting them as sharing work and passions rather than ego-tripping.

But perhaps it's just me?

[vjbelle]

And wasn’t that such a resounding success last time?

Edit:

Yes it was until it was reinstated.  But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone. 

This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?

You want politics then there a lots of other places to get beat up. 

Victor

[David Sutton]

My final word is be careful on rules.   Regardless of the name the person uses, if they go nuts, just turn them off.   Anyone can set up a new account using g-mail or a dozen other services.

Perhaps what is different now is that what passes for political discourse has been poisoned at the highest levels. It's become a Disney re-make without the intellect rigour. A KFC fatburger  minus the flavour. An illiterate obese aunt in a mini skirt with badly applied lipstick teaching philosophy.
That's what we have. A turd without polish.
Time to have a break from the tiresome farting and posturing?

PS
Cool photo BC. I look in astonishment at the plastic chair. You've taken something lost in my past and elevated it. What has been discarded and unloved becomes a source of wonder.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I look in astonishment at the plastic..

On the left or on the right?

[Manoli]

Yes it was until it was reinstated.  But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone. 
This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?

There are 99+ pages on the American Constitution.
I haven't read a single post.
I suggest you do likewise.

Live and let live.

In the meantime there's GetDPI (where you also post) so you're hardly deprived.

[David Sutton]

On the left or on the right?

Naughty man! 

[vjbelle]

In the meantime there's GetDPI (where you also post) so you're hardly deprived.

Great to know that you're one of my many followers......

Victor

[D Fuller]

I’m in favor of real names on “serious” sites like this, but as many have said, good moderation matters more.

But, as the thread has expanded to another look at politics, I’ll give my thoughts on that as well: I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.

I made the mistake, some time ago, of commenting on the “American constitution” thread. I realized the pointlessness of it in short order, but having commented, it continues to appear on my “replies” list even though I’ve set my profile to ignore the Coffee Corner. I see that thread has now grown to 90+ pages in a fairly short time. What other thread gets that much attention? The “Professional Works” thread has 140+ pages, but it’s been going on since 2013.

It doesn’t matter what I think of the opinions expressed. And I do understand that for some members it’s an important social outlet—even community. But what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...it continues to appear on my “replies”...

Delete your original post, and it will stop appearing.

... what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum....

These things are not mutually exclusive. Rob C continues to post in the Art subforum, James Clark, Bernard, Russ, and myself as well. Bart is active in technical and equipment forums, as well as Bernard. Sorry if I omitted anyone.

The other thing is discussing photography styles and art is all but dead. Not the fault of political discussions. In many other Internet sites. Fred Miranda, for instance, is much more photography-heavy, but posting a picture there, in any other forum but Landscape, results in about 2-3 replies on average (Landscape gets maybe 5-6). People are tired of discussion photography. It is a visual discipline, not verbal.

[Manoli]

I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.
[...]
and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.

An existential threat indeed, though not if you are to believe the new owner. Monthly page hits declined from a 2018 high of over 99m to barely 30m. And though there was pickup once the CC was resurrected the damage was done.

The forums on Lula used to be a gathering place for knowledgeable pros and serious amateurs to discuss photography, both the tech and the art, as well as real issues. Now it's mostly the same people, having the same tedious conversations with themselves, over and over.  It's driven out the high-value people and diminished the value to the general readership.

Moderating is one thing, censorship and 'rules' another.
The old guard didn't leave 'en masse' because of the Coffee Corner.

[vjbelle]

An existential threat indeed, though not if you are to believe the new owner. Monthly page hits declined from a 2018 high of over 99m to barely 30m. And though there was pickup once the CC was resurrected the damage was done.

The forums on Lula used to be a gathering place for knowledgeable pros and serious amateurs to discuss photography, both the tech and the art, as well as real issues. Now it's mostly the same people, having the same tedious conversations with themselves, over and over.  It's driven out the high-value people and diminished the value to the general readership.

Moderating is one thing, censorship and 'rules' another.
The old guard didn't leave 'en masse' because of the Coffee Corner.

+1

Couldn't have said it better......

Victor

[Rob C]

Rob, as far as I'm concerned the more controversial the pictures the better and I prefer to think of posting them as sharing work and passions rather than ego-tripping.

But perhaps it's just me?

Keith, I agree wholeheartedly: the entire post was supposed to be read as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.

;-)