Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

On the topic of ethical behaviour my Philosophy Tutor at University said if you have to think about what you are about to communicate, then ask yourself would I direct it to people I love and respect.

What I have found with photography in this day and age is that digital photography is easily accessible to people who have massive egos and very little skill. The same people don’t understand that photography is about people and if you’re not taking pics of people your sharing your images with people. No offence intended.
 
Upvote 0
rpt said:
if say 49% of the threads on this site were like that, would you be visiting the site?
This. I visited that thread several times to see if some redeeming information had shown up or if someone with more than half a brain had put some sense into the OP - being disappointed each time. Not a big surprise, since the whole thread was based on lies.

Thankfully, I missed the racist rant but in general: I visit this forum to become a better photographer - not to be subjected to the "the internet is a big free-for-all, get lost if you don't like me" movement. And that is not even considering that such behaviour is not just brutally offensive, but also inherently contradictory.

Anyhoo - moderators, thank you. I too had expected this to happen earlier, but it sure is the right course of action.
 
Upvote 0
I missed the racist post that everyone is talking about so do not know how bad it was.

But the rest seemed fine for a forum to me. If we cant take simple discussion like that then we would have tough time discussing concepts or results with clients. :)

I kind of believe in free speech.
 
Upvote 0
sanj said:
I kind of believe in free speech.

Me too, but since CR & other channels are run by private individuals or enterprises with a business interest you are free to speak up to your pets and family in the comfort of your own home or write a sign and stand next to the freeway :->

Having said that, I never saw anything removed on CR that I'd consider to be censorship or over the top, and narrowing down the theme to photography does make sense. My only potential issue is the exclusion of politics, since it's very fuzzy what is political and what not, but I think the mods have good common sense here and mostly remove dumb party politics or comments on international warfare (declared or undeclared).
 
Upvote 0
Well, if it's turning into a poll- although I believe in free speech- I support the moderators on this one. I've run internet forums, Compuserve forums and even a fidonet BBS back in the early '90s. The value of the entire place diminishes greatly when a free-for-all erupts. People get crazy behind the anonymity of a keyboard and as much as we like to think we're all adults- the conversation often needs to be nudged back in proper directions.
 
Upvote 0
I support free speech. I also support the right to kick someone out of my house that I don't like, or tell somebody to shut up if I don't like what they're saying, if they're in my home. The same should go for websites. Moderators have the right to moderate on a site, for whatever reason. It's their website, not yours. They have the right to allow or disallow any information they want. Someone said that moderators are required by law to remove posts. No they're not. Maybe in Iran or North Korea. Not in the free world.
 
Upvote 0
We remove very few threads, however, this is not a free for all. In this case, We had a little more info than was apparent to many readers. It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.
 
Upvote 0
Rat said:
I visit this forum to become a better photographer - not to be subjected to the "the internet is a big free-for-all, get lost if you don't like me" movement. And that is not even considering that such behaviour is not just brutally offensive, but also inherently contradictory.

+1 Amen!
 
Upvote 0
CR Backup Admin said:
We remove very few threads, however, this is not a free for all. In this case, We had a little more info than was apparent to many readers. It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

You must have your reasons and I respect them.
 
Upvote 0
.
Good exercise of free speech, Mark. Responsible, reasonable statement of opinion. No surprise that I agree with you mostly since we both have journalism backgrounds.

First, I have to acknowledge what I see as improvement in overall moderating. Of course, it's a thankless job and a lot of people contribute a lot of work to keep good order here. Overall, I've never seen a better or more useful forum. A year ago I would have described the "moderator" as someone who thought this should be a sort of proper English gentleman's club (no offense intended to English or gentleman's clubs). "Damn Yankee" would probably pass muster then, but certainly not "damn Canon." It seems not to be that touchy now, and thankfully a bit more realistic in what is a rough-and-tumble world. My only real niggling complaint is there seems to exist a small clique of somehow privileged members who think a bit more of themselves than warranted while acting like the mass of posters are common rabble. But, that's my perhaps irrational perspective. Who knows!

What I've accepted is this place is kind of like a bar, let's say Cheers (although they don't know most of our names!). Let's call our bar the Lens Half Full. The people who run the bar want to make a few bucks while providing a place for people to interact with good order. There is a bouncer, and the bartender/owner keeps a shotgun behind the bar, just in case. We can stop in after work, talk about photo stuff, share some experiences, tell some stories, maybe learn how other people get along in the world of picture making -- and go home better folks for it. See you same time tomorrow at Lens Half Full.

Some folks may not understand what "good order" means. Sometimes a bouncer oversteps a bit. _hit, as they say, happens. Life is not perfect. We learn. We go on.

The comedian Ron White tells a wonderful story of being arrested in New York for being "drunk in public." Basically, he went into a bar wearing a hat. The bouncer told him to take it off as they did not allow hats. Ridiculous rule, but it's their bar. You want to be there you take your hat off. Ron puts his hat back on, and they throw him out.

Official Ron White - I Got Thrown Out of a Bar

Anyway, yesterday's purple thread was remarkable, to me, only in that so many people fed into his nonsense. It doesn't take long to spot an attention whore. When you do, you ignore him. That guy was not looking for advice, help or anything else useful. He wanted nothing but for people to pay attention to him. When you walk down a city street and see a guy who hasn't bathed in weeks wearing a torn, dirty shirt and waving his arms in the air warning that Napoleon has returned to get him, you ignore him. If necessary, you turn around and walk the other way. You do not engage him in a conversation about the Napoleonic Wars or the island of Saint Helena. (No offense meant to France or the French people. Vive la France!)

One of the things I most enjoy about free speech is that people have absolute freedom to embarrass themselves, show how dumb they are, whatever. We listeners have an equal right to make a judgement about whatever they say. The real crux of wisdom is how we react to what is said.

Yesterday we had a thread worth ignoring. Today, we have one worth participating in.

Thanks, Mark.
 
Upvote 0
FatDaddyJones said:
I support free speech. I also support the right to kick someone out of my house that I don't like, or tell somebody to shut up if I don't like what they're saying, if they're in my home. The same should go for websites. Moderators have the right to moderate on a site, for whatever reason. It's their website, not yours. They have the right to allow or disallow any information they want. Someone said that moderators are required by law to remove posts. No they're not. Maybe in Iran or North Korea. Not in the free world.

I agree you have the right to kick someone offensive from your house.
I agree that it is their website and not mine.

I do NOT agree with "allow or disallow ANY information..."

I feel that when a website starts a forum, it needs to allow people to express themselves in any way they like as long as it is not offensive. A forum in fact is inviting people to participate, or else it would not exist. 'Offensive' can be subjective and the judge of that needs to be the moderators.

I felt (not having read the racist remark) that the rest was not offensive.

I mean we are not school kids. Really! We are working professionals who have to deal with lots worse during the course of our regular day.

Anyway no big deal and this is just my opinion. :)
 
Upvote 0
Marsu42 said:
Don Haines said:
It ended with the racist rant. Most countries have laws about that.... to allow it to remain, particularly after the moderator was made aware, is to invite legal action against CanonRumors.

Well, I didn't read the post, but there's always freedom of speech that has to be weighted against opinions (idiotic as they may be), to remove a racist post is probably more good taste and common political sense then preventing a lawsuit.

Most western countries, with the exception of the USA, have enacted hate crime legislation, legislation which also covers "hate speach". Here in Canada, it also applies to internet activity and those running a website can be liable for what others post on it. Obviously, other countries differ to various degrees.... and this is an international forum and things get nebulous...

The OP spewed a line of disgracefull behaviour and ended it by making derogatory comments towards certain ethnic groups while calling all the members of this form fools and idiots.... so the moderator pulled the plug... actions have consequences....HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT AND INSULT YOU....hey..where did everyone go? how come I can't log in any more? Why doesn't anyone want to play with me?
 
Upvote 0
sanj said:
FatDaddyJones said:
I support free speech. I also support the right to kick someone out of my house that I don't like, or tell somebody to shut up if I don't like what they're saying, if they're in my home. The same should go for websites. Moderators have the right to moderate on a site, for whatever reason. It's their website, not yours. They have the right to allow or disallow any information they want. Someone said that moderators are required by law to remove posts. No they're not. Maybe in Iran or North Korea. Not in the free world.

I agree you have the right to kick someone offensive from your house.
I agree that it is their website and not mine.

I do NOT agree with "allow or disallow ANY information..."

I feel that when a website starts a forum, it needs to allow people to express themselves in any way they like as long as it is not offensive. A forum in fact is inviting people to participate, or else it would not exist. 'Offensive' can be subjective and the judge of that needs to be the moderators.

I felt (not having read the racist remark) that the rest was not offensive.

I mean we are not school kids. Really! We are working professionals who have to deal with lots worse during the course of our regular day.

Anyway no big deal and this is just my opinion. :)

The point was that it should be left up to the discretion of the site moderators as to what is allowed and not allowed - which is exactly the way it is, and the way it should be. I never read this "purple" thread at all. The problem with total free speech with no rules or moderation on the internet is #1 Spam, #2 Trolls, #3 offensive speech that drives away traffic from your website. There has to be rules and enforcement of them, otherwise you get a bunch of foul language, arguments, and Vi@gra advertisements.

CR Backup Admin said:
We remove very few threads, however, this is not a free for all. In this case, We had a little more info than was apparent to many readers. It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

Obviously, the OP was banned, and not just that particular thread removed.
 
Upvote 0
CR Backup Admin said:
It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

???

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this aspect of "removal"?

If there existed " ...many worthwhile posts", why deprive future readers of that "worth" simply because their provider is to be exiled?

Are those posts suddenly worth-less to forum readers when the author's behavior is considered flawed, ...or is this seen as some sort of punishment? If so, who is really being punished, author or readers?
 
Upvote 0
Larry said:
CR Backup Admin said:
It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

???


If there existed " ...many worthwhile posts", why deprive future readers of that "worth" simply because their provider is to be exiled?

Are those posts suddenly worth-less to forum readers when the author's behavior is considered flawed, ...or is this seen as some sort of punishment? If so, who is really being punished, author or readers?

Example to illustrate previous post:

Pythagorus contributes a "theorem" in a post to a mathematics forum.

The thread follows with much discussion of the terrific potential uses for the theorem to engineering, etc.

Pythagorus gets drunk, and makes an insulting fool of himself in a subsequent post.

The baby (thread) is thrown out with the bathwater (drunken offender).

Who is the loser? ::)
 
Upvote 0
Larry said:
CR Backup Admin said:
It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

???

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this aspect of "removal"?

If there existed " ...many worthwhile posts", why deprive future readers of that "worth" simply because their provider is to be exiled?

Are those posts suddenly worth-less to forum readers when the author's behavior is considered flawed, ...or is this seen as some sort of punishment? If so, who is really being punished, author or readers?
Its the way the forum software works, remove the first post (OP) and the rest of the thread goes away. If he was not the OP, only his posts would go away. Thats the way SMF and most forum software works. You do not have a thread if there is no original post, and when the OP is gone, so are threads he started. His posts could remain intact, but we did not want to keep them.
 
Upvote 0
Larry said:
Larry said:
CR Backup Admin said:
It was not about the many worthwhile posts, but the OP, and when he went, so did his posts and threads he started.

???


If there existed " ...many worthwhile posts", why deprive future readers of that "worth" simply because their provider is to be exiled?

Are those posts suddenly worth-less to forum readers when the author's behavior is considered flawed, ...or is this seen as some sort of punishment? If so, who is really being punished, author or readers?

Example to illustrate previous post:

Pythagorus contributes a "theorem" in a post to a mathematics forum.

The thread follows with much discussion of the terrific potential uses for the theorem to engineering, etc.

Pythagorus gets drunk, and makes an insulting fool of himself in a subsequent post.

The thread (baby) is thrown out with the bathwater (drunken offender).

Who is the loser? ::)
That post had NO "theorem"!
 
Upvote 0