Forum etiquette—keep calm and carry on

[Rob C]

All I would like to see is posters politely responding to all critiques. If you cannot do that, may I suggest you refrain from submitting images.
Roger

Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?

You've left me confused on that one.

I seldom offer critique because I feel that none, from anyone, really has value beyond disclosure of that person's own bias, likes and dislikes. What do you gain from that, other than just having your image discussed, your vanity stroked - or not? You really, really believe you can learn how to be someone else?

I do like to look at other people's images, not to absorb their personal emotions at all, but to see how their images affect or even reflect my emotional being.

That's the beauty of glossy fashion magazines: you see exceptional imagery but you don't have to read a word. Unless you want or need to do so, which is nice.

Rob C

[Johnny_Johnson]

The discussion so far proves my point! There are those who appreciate detailed critiques and those who want a word limit of 6 or 25.

I, personally, would find Johnny's critique stunted in the sense it does not help me make successful images in the future.
Roger

I apologize Rodger, I should have included a funny face  with my reply. It was simply my observation of what has been considered by some to be an ideal critique.

Later,
Johnny

[RSL]

Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began. Prior to that, even though some of us always have been pretty intense in our criticisms we'd always been pretty polite -- at least since the departure of "dalethorn." There's a reason why things recently turned brutal, and if you check back a bit you'll see the beginnings of the problem. Don't ask me to mention a name. I don't really need to.

[James Clark]

Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?

You've left me confused on that one.

I seldom offer critique because I feel that none, from anyone, really has value beyond disclosure of that person's own bias, likes and dislikes. What do you gain from that, other than just having your image discussed, your vanity stroked - or not? You really, really believe you can learn how to be someone else?

I do like to look at other people's images, not to absorb their personal emotions at all, but to see how their images affect or even reflect my emotional being.



Rob C

I like this take quite a bit...  Thumbs up.  I tried to make the same point, or at least ask a similar question,  (albeit much less elegantly) in my own "No standing" thread. 

[dmerger]

Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began.

Russ, with all due respect, I've been around here a hell of a lot longer than you. Saying I need to go back through the last few months of posts is kind of insulting. More to the point, you’re side stepping the issue.  Perhaps you could respond to my questions directly related to the topic of this thread?

It seems like you’re saying that if anyone determines for themselves that what someone else writes is “verbose and full of fluff”, then it is okay to be insulting?  Why not just give your opinion of the photo?  Let the readers read both opinions and decide for themselves which, if either, they agree with.  The purpose of “User Critiques” is to critique photos, not to critique other critiques.  By ranting on about someone else’s alleged verbosity and fluff, rather than commenting on the photo, you’re just distracting from the photo critique. 

Moreover, to refuse to object (in the insulting manner which has been done recently) to what you personally believe is a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is not a demonstration of wussiness.  It’s a demonstration of a civilized, mature, intelligent discussion.

Also, if you think someone’s comments are verbose and full of fluff, then don’t read them.  What could be easier? Why make a big deal out of it and try to make everyone conform to how you think they should write critiques?  I just don’t get your attitude, so I’m sincerely asking for an explanation.

[RSL]

I'm not asking you to go all the way back to 2003 when you came on, Dean, or even to 2009 when I came on. I'm asking you to go back over the past few months and see when and why the whole thing blew up. I'm pretty sure you already know the answer, so you probably don't need to do that. Everybody else seems to be pretty clear about when it happened and how it happened. It's also pretty clear that actually you do "get my attitude," and why I have it, so I'm sure you don't really need an explanation.

[amolitor]

Indeed. You only need to read one thread, in fact. It's all right there.

[Rob C]

I like this take quite a bit...  Thumbs up.  I tried to make the same point, or at least ask a similar question,  (albeit much less elegantly) in my own "No standing" thread. 

Yeah, it's something both from within and without.

The two most important lessons I learned from without came from a couple of black dudes:

1.  Cuck Berry: Never let the same dog bite you twice;

2.  the Michael Jackson video: The Way You Make Me Feel: listen closely, catch 1.50 to 2.04 (and a bit further on, too).

http://youtu.be/6678i3u7lVI

Rob C

[dmerger]

Oh for the love of god.

Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something, esp. a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

Criticism also has another definition, number 2 in my dictionary, which means Critique. That definition doesn't apply to your cute little lecture on my mean behavior. The definition that DOES apply is definition 1, in my dictionary, which is quoted above, and which does not mean critique.

And now I am going to stop splitting these stupid semantic hairs with yet another person who clearly just wants to pick a fight.

 
Yup, that sums it up nicely.  I use your words verbatim to show the absurdity of your statements, and then you split hairs and raise irrelevant semantic quibbles.  You’re the one who edited your reply to raise a silly, irrelevant critique/criticism distinction. What was your point in doing so? 

Even so, you’re still semantic hair splitting and yet again wrong (deceptive) about the meaning of those words.

“Definition of CRITIQUE: an act of criticizing” (Note this is the first, primary definition) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critique

Cherry picking a narrower, secondary definition of critique just to make a silly point is dishonest and, well, silly. 

Also, you accuse me of just wanting to pick a fight, but of course you’re haven’t considered that the same could be said about you?  Give me a break.  Such an accusation appears to be just a way to get out from answering some uncomfortable, direct questions, and defending your comments in a rational manner.

Moreover, you still haven’t said who you were referring to as the only person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.  Could it be that you meant RG, but after I noted your problem accepting criticism, you changed your statement to mean just critiques of posted photos (as if that really makes any difference), and then realized your problem with him was not about photos he posted?  If I’m wrong, just tell us who you meant.

[dmerger]

Dave, I appreciate your sentiment, but I think things have been fairly calm, at least comparatively. I also think this is an interesting topic, but doubt that anyone will change their minds or behavior based on what is said here.

[dmerger]

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer, so you probably don't need to do that. ... It's also pretty clear that actually you do "get my attitude," and why I have it, so I'm sure you don't really need an explanation.

Yes, I'm aware of the history, but I truly don't understand your attitude and sincerely would appreciate an explanation to the questions I asked. It seems to me that my questions are pretty straight forward and answers would be enlightening.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So, Slobodan, I’d really like to hear your explanation of how Roger’s suggestions would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes.

Dean, this whole issue has created so many threads and posts, and raised so many issues, that I sincerely have a hard time catching up, let alone responding to everyone and everything (again, this is a serious statement, not meant to put down anyone already waiting in line for my specific answers). Especially responding in a comprehensive manner -- just taking damn too much time. I feel I would need to do what several long-standing members already did -- close the account -- in order to do something a bit more useful (as opposed to fighting the windmills here). This last episode is just making it one step closer to being the last drop. This is also why I often resort to one-liners (or sniping, depending on your point of view).

So, while I still intend to write a comprehensive answer to Roger's (or is it RG's Alger Ego?)  suggested new etiquette, I will resort, for the time being, just to a single, semi-serious line:

We are already witnessing the invasion of the wussies, running for mommy's protection, judging by the one-too-many clicks on the Report-to-moderator button,  which already closed one thread.

Over the years, I've been called all sort of things, some pretty offensive (including a threat of physical violence), and some members were even banned for that, but I have, never, ever reported anyone.

 

[amolitor]

As indicated, Dean, I'm done.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm all about the photography Roger. Sounds good to me.

Oh, you two are in agreement? How surprising!

Why does that remind me of the latest Discover Card commercials? For those outside the States, here is the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHsyyFi1Ys

Btw, in case you are wondering what is this about, and until proven otherwise, I am buying Stamper's theory (post #17)

[RSL]

Yes, I'm aware of the history, but I truly don't understand your attitude and sincerely would appreciate an explanation to the questions I asked. It seems to me that my questions are pretty straight forward and answers would be enlightening.

Sorry Dean, I hate to say it, but that's about the least straightforward plea I've heard in a very long time.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Oh, you two are in agreement? How surprising!

Why does that remind me of the latest Discover Card commercials? For those outside the States, here is the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHsyyFi1Ys

Btw, in case you are wondering what is this about, and until proven otherwise, I am buying Stamper's theory (post #17)

Thank you for that, Slobodan!

[rogerxnz]

Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?

You've left me confused on that one.

Sorry you are confused Rob C.

I am not suggesting members have to critique every single image.

All I am suggesting is that, whatever members do on this forum, they do so politely.

Doing so politely includes not directing comments to the persons behind the postings. That means not trying to discredit posters or their postings by comments about the poster. If you don't like a critique for whatever reason, just appreciate the time and effort the poster has spent, give thanks and move on. If you want elaboration, do so politely.

Hope this helps.
Roger

[rogerxnz]

Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began. Prior to that, even though some of us always have been pretty intense in our criticisms we'd always been pretty polite -- at least since the departure of "dalethorn." There's a reason why things recently turned brutal, and if you check back a bit you'll see the beginnings of the problem. Don't ask me to mention a name. I don't really need to.

I fail to see the point of the exercise you are suggesting. Are you saying there is someone that started all this heat? Isn't that what infants say to justify their poor behaviour?

I am trying to get the business of this forum away from personalities so we can get back to critiquing images without personal attacks.

I think we are all adults here. As such, we may not be able to control what others do, but we can control how we react.

That's what I would like members to focus on—how they react to what they see and write. I think members should be able to stick to the topic and stop bringing into their posts adverse comments on other members and their posts.
Roger

[WalterEG]

Roger,

I am in 100% agreement with your expressed views: but I fear it may be a lost cause.

Oh, that it were otherwise.

[dmerger]

Sorry Dean, I hate to say it, but that's about the least straightforward plea I've heard in a very long time.

I have no clue what you mean.  Could you explain, please?  

It seems like you're ducking answering some very simple questions about how you justify rude, personal attacks just because you personally believe that someone's comments were verbose and full of fluff.  I'm trying to understand another perspective, but you and the posters that seem to most defend your position all seem to find reasons to not explain the justification.  If you (or the others) really believe your position is justified, you should be able explain it.  Isn't that the essence of an intelligent discussion?  I'm more than willing to listen to all sides, if only "your" side would explain.

(Maybe I'm just cynical because I've encounter similar excuses in other threads and elsewhere when it appears someone just runs out of ways to try to justify something that can't be justified, but rather than just say so, they make excuses to avoid facing the fact that they can't provide a reasonable justification.)