Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Topic Locked  
 First unread post  | 35 posts | 
by Royce Howland on Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:34 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Recently there has been a decline in the level of productive, respectful behavior in this forum. The forum is presently under review, as stated in an earlier thread. I'm restating it here for all who visit and post in this forum.

If you have not read the guidelines for this forum, read these two posts now:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092
These topics are often emotionally charged, but we ask that that NatureScapes.Net guidelines be adhered to. Our site is for the discussion of nature photography issues in a friendly and civil manner. Posts outside the guidelines will be moderated. A specific concern for this forum is name calling and verbal abuse of people just because of the view they hold, whether they are posting in our forums or hold a position in political office.
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 7&t=124523
In the past we have allowed somewhat controversial threads to be posted here, and we will continue to do so at our discretion. We realize that in topics of this nature, people may have strong beliefs and bring a lot of passion to discussing and debating some issues. This is fine and expected. But our forums first are foremost are intended to be a civil, courteous and respectful environment. Personal character attacks of any kind do not have a place here.
[...]
When you focus on the issue, then you can look for ways that NSN could be part of the solution:

   What information do you want NSN'ers to know about a situation?
   What actions would you ask NSN'ers to take, or not take?
   What resources can you point out that make it possible for interested NSN'ers to raise their awareness and make informed decisions?
   What opportunities are there for NSN'ers to become advocates with authorities or elected officials?

If you can address any of these kinds of things, then it's one way to help channel controversy into positive changes.
If you need a refresher, perhaps you might also review the general NSN forum guidelines, which form part of the terms of service you agree to as a participant in this community:
http://www.naturescapes.net/information ... uidelines/
Dialog should remain courteous and civil to maintain a friendly atmosphere in the forums. NatureScapes.Net® reserves the right to edit or delete posts contrary to the intended use of these forums. Report offensive posts to the forum moderators. Repeated offenses by posters may force suspension of the member(s) from the forums. It is the intent to maintain a level of courteousness so that all members may enjoy the forum interaction. Debates and controversy pertaining to nature photography are appropriate when conducted cordially. Character attacks of any fashion have no place on these forums.

The forums were created by photographers for photographers. The intent is to provide a friendly and civil atmosphere to discuss nature photography and display and receive constructive feedback on posted images. Please help us create and maintain such an environment by following the forum guidelines.
As has always been the case, NSN reserves the right to summarily moderate new threads or posts to existing threads, or to take other corrective actions as required. Contrary to what some might think, we do fundamentally presume that members are generally mature adults who can govern themselves within posted guidelines and general expectations for courteous behavior within the NSN community. We're all busy, and have neither the time nor the inclination to micro-manage discussion between members. If persistent behavior warrants it, however, then we're forced to begin taking a closer look at what's going on and act accordingly. That's the situation we're in now with the EC&E forum.

Some specific statements brought on by recent events. Stop baiting each other, and sniping back and forth. Stop troll-ish behavior where content is posted in a way that knowingly incites some kind of negative reaction. Discussions are to share, inform, seek constructive feedback, learn, promote positive advocacy, etc. They're not to agitate, tear down individuals, call names, or spread negativity.

Another specific comment. Recently there have been many examples of new threads posted here that link to off-site information but where little or no actual commentary is posted. NSN is not a link farm. If you have something to share, share it. But do so in a way that adds value to the NSN community. Summarize the points of the external info. Ask questions. State your opinion. Identify an issue and what you plan to do about it. Etc. In essence, contribute to productive discussion. If you can't do any of this, then ask yourself why you're posting the information to NSN.
Royce Howland

by Mike in O on Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:00 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Royse, always good to be reminded of proper decorum...I do have a comment on giving opinions. They naturally inflame persons of a different persuasions, you can not have it both ways. Many of the links being provided try to side step this problem by not giving opponents a reason to attack and to just spread knowledge. If you would rather the participants really state their views, then I am sure we can accommodate you.

by Royce Howland on Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:31 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Mike, thanks for commenting. It's a potentially valid concern, however after 30+ years of involvement in all kinds of online forums, I'd have to say yes you can have it both ways in my experience. The choices of "give no opinions" or "inflame persons of different persuasions" aren't the only options; there are many other points on the spectrum of discussion besides those two.

One of the main points of the moderation steps we've had to take recently and in the past is to counter-act any culture of fear and bluster created by people being "inflamed" and "attacking" others. That's obviously counter to our forum guidelines, and the respectful culture we want here. We're an open forum and expect people to behave responsibly without us having to micro-manage stuff all the time. The examples of active moderation here are rare for a site as large and diverse as NSN is. Still, we won't let troll-ish behavior take over; if people want to spout anything that crosses their mind, guidelines be damned, then they can go elsewhere. NSN is not for them.

We encourage everyone to trust the community to dialogue responsibly. Why? Because everyone should comment in a way that demonstrates they value being trusted to hold a respectful dialogue... in other words, follow the Golden Rule. And, in cases where somebody doesn't do so (as seen recently), then do 2 additional things: a) ignore inflammatory posts, because surely to God everybody in this age knows not to feed the trolls; and b) trust the moderators to step in where necessary to shepherd things back on track (assisted by flagging a post if necessary, to bring it to our attention).

In the case of the off-site links example, obviously a person posting a link feels others should check it out. Why not state the reason for this, or anything else that adds value? When I see a link posted with absolutely no commentary about it, for example, I'm given very little motivation to click through it -- like when Facebook injects random stuff into my timeline. Even Facebook or Twitter usually post a few lines summarizing something about a link. And if the original poster of the link said little or nothing about it, why should I as a reader comment anything about it either? Bunches of virtually context-free links are a lot less likely to foster much discussion. One or two every so often, okay, fair enough. As a persistent stream the way that seems to have developed over the past while, well... not so much.
Royce Howland

by Gary Briney on Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:55 pm
User avatar
Gary Briney
Lifetime Member
Posts: 18291
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Location: USA
Member #:00336
Mike in O wrote:Royse, always good to be reminded of proper decorum...I do have a comment on giving opinions.  They naturally inflame persons of a different persuasions, you can not have it both ways.  Many of the links being provided try to side step this problem by not giving opponents a reason to attack and to just spread knowledge.  If you would rather the participants really state their views, then I am sure we can accommodate you.
It's true that opinion can inflame passions, and I agree that stating positions simply and briefly is highly desirable. However Royce's request for commentary summarizing the content in the link was misinterpreted. What's needed is a brief factual statement about the subject of the link, not more opinion. For example, "Here's a link about X,Y,Z," not "Here's another source that proves you're a schmuck." In fact, the moment the pronoun "you" creeps into a response, the line has been crossed. Responsible discussion should show respect for the opposing view so that deliberate insults are avoided. That's not been the case in some recent threads. Rather than limiting discussion to the merits of varying points of view, contributors have attacked each other on a personal level.
G. Briney

by SantaFeJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:23 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Royce Howland wrote:Another specific comment. Recently there have been many examples of new threads posted here that link to off-site information but where little or no actual commentary is posted. NSN is not a link farm. If you have something to share, share it. But do so in a way that adds value to the NSN community. Summarize the points of the external info. Ask questions. State your opinion. Identify an issue and what you plan to do about it. Etc. In essence, contribute to productive discussion. If you can't do any of this, then ask yourself why you're posting the information to NSN.
In the case of the off-site links example, obviously a person posting a link feels others should check it out. Why not state the reason for this, or anything else that adds value? When I see a link posted with absolutely no commentary about it, for example, I'm given very little motivation to click through it -- like when Facebook injects random stuff into my timeline. Even Facebook or Twitter usually post a few lines summarizing something about a link. And if the original poster of the link said little or nothing about it, why should I as a reader comment anything about it either? Bunches of virtually context-free links are a lot less likely to foster much discussion. One or two every so often, okay, fair enough. As a persistent stream the way that seems to have developed over the past while, well... not so much
Royce, don't take this wrong, as I'm not trying to be contrary or disrespectful of you or NSN.
Since it is obvious I'm the one doing these postings, I will give some explanation and comments. When I post a link, I try to clearly make note of the subject in the title of the thread. Most of these links are descriptive in themselves of the content. I feel that anyone interested in the subject will use a simple click to check out the articles if they are not too lazy. If they find the subject unappealing, they just don't have to click on the link or even open the thread. This is not saying, as you implied above, that "I feel others should check it out". That motivation is individual and I'm not saying everybody needs to read it.
To show that they are appreciated by some, I will copy a few comments that have been posted here in this forum or received by me in PMs from fellow NSNers:

Thanks Joe for another interesting article, keep them coming.
Thanks for this posting Joe.
  Joe - thanks for posting all the interested articles - I enjoy reading them and I have learned a lot.
E-mail I sent to folks. You're recognized as giving links
Joe I have found your posts informative and on point - 
Many thanks for sharing Joe
And then there was this one to keep things balanced:
Respectfully, I find the mere posting of links somewhat shallow. For myself, posts are usually far more interesting when the poster has something to convey from their own mind, be it related to a link or not.
Many of my postings of links are strictly informative and not really meant for discussion, e.g.:

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 7&t=250890

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 7&t=249974

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 7&t=252113

Oops, there go the links again!
The way I look at it is that this is similar to what Yahoo and Google news headlines are like, but without the tease. If you want to read about a subject of a headline, you can click on it and if you don't care to, you don't have to.

http://news.yahoo.com/

So that's my point of view anyway. I hope you will understand things from my vantage point.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso

by OntPhoto on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:40 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Good reminder and reality check. Think I can speak for many here. I have little time for nonsense. Especially on a public forum. Nowadays when you post something online, people can Google it years down the road. Another reason to be on good behaviour ;-) Hope sanity has returned.

I remember the wild days of DPReview when little moderation was going on. It was the wild west pretty much :-) But even DPR is well moderated these days. Very little nonsense gets by there nowadays. Some other sites are too heavily censored which is also not the best solution.

by Scott Fairbairn on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:56 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
I agree posting a few comments with a link can be helpful instead of just a link, but I know I've done both at times.  I have to admit, I'm more likely to click on a link if there is a short summary in the post. Repetitive posts I don't think are particularly helpful, especially on the same topic.  :? 

by OntPhoto on Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:05 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Gary Briney wrote:
Mike in O wrote:Royse, always good to be reminded of proper decorum...I do have a comment on giving opinions.  They naturally inflame persons of a different persuasions, you can not have it both ways.  Many of the links being provided try to side step this problem by not giving opponents a reason to attack and to just spread knowledge.  If you would rather the participants really state their views, then I am sure we can accommodate you.
It's true that opinion can inflame passions, and I agree that stating positions simply and briefly is highly desirable. However Royce's request for commentary summarizing the content in the link was misinterpreted. What's needed is a brief factual statement about the subject of the link, not more opinion.

I purposely do not post my opinion when posting a link.  I leave it for open discussion and see how everyone else thinks.  Then I may offer my feedback. 

by Royce Howland on Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:51 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Joe, I was not intending to call you out without mentioning your name. :) But thanks for commenting on your point of view; no disrespect at all. Although you've posted a lot of links lately, so have others. Really I was simply remarking on one thing that I've seen as a developing trend here. We're not necessarily going to make a bunch of "rules" about things; that approach ultimately is unsustainable in my experience, anyway. What we are trying to do is promote the kinds of content we think adds the best contributions to the community.

The fact that you get appreciative PM's for some of the material you've linked indicates some people do like it. That's fine. The fact that some of those folks presumably are PM'ing you instead of publicly commenting, perhaps indicates there is some untapped potential. :) So I'm not saying, "don't post bare links". I am saying "posting links with some context, summary, questions, linkage to other issues, or anything else adds more value."

It's all a balance. If things are healthy in a forum, then a lot of diverse types of content can contribute to that health. If something seems to be becoming significant and it's not core to the purpose, we take note of it, especially if things are over-all less healthy than we'd like to see...
Royce Howland

by pleverington on Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:45 am
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Royce from your first link to Greg's outline for the forum...

"Many photographers have expressed a deep interest in becoming more aware of their environment, conservation concerns, and ethical issues. We have provided this forum for discussion of these issues as they relate directly to nature and nature photography. "

So why has there been statements lately that focus to exclude "nature" issues and only let those conservation issues as they directly relate to nature photography?
Perhaps this fundamental should be cleared up first as it sounds like we are looking at the forum wearing two hats.


Sometimes the truth offends people, but should that be a reason to ignore it or stifle it??
I think your overeating on some aspects in this post. I agree about the links and agree folks should be respectful, but I also believe they have been just that. And  as has been said there are many opinions and no one likes their apple cart upset, but isn't that the way it goes sometimes to get to the fundamental truths? Airing out individual beliefs and thoughts puts it all on the table.

And do we have responsibilities as photographers of nature and as the dominant species on earth? Some would say no I guess.

The forum might be the most important one on the site when it comes to ways to actually save what we all love. I believe working to bring it more to a center stage as a resource will in the end be more productive in that venue. As is, it feels as if it is being looked upon as a sideshow at times, and it shouldn't.

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by pleverington on Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:21 am
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Royce that's ok if you want to play the shun game on me, but you do need to address the populace about the actual intent of the guideline as it is ambiguous.

"We have provided this forum for discussion of these issues as they relate directly to nature and nature photography."


Is it "Nature AND Nature photography", or is it just "Nature photography" only."
We have been doing both the whole time, but now all of a sudden EJ makes issue that it should only be pertaining to "Nature Photography". Personally I have no problem with whatever decision you guys make and will respect that, but it is not at all clear to us at this point in time. Don't you think this would help others and the site to clear it up?? Regardless of what your thinking of me at this point??

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Gary Briney on Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:47 pm
User avatar
Gary Briney
Lifetime Member
Posts: 18291
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Location: USA
Member #:00336
As Royce's original post makes clear, the emphasis is on nature photography -- after all the website is primarily a photography site. There's no need for a legalistic harangue splitting hairs -- the precipitating issue leading to this thread has been the adversarial behavior of contributors in this forum. Take a hint. ;)
Royce Howland wrote:Recently there has been a decline in the level of productive, respectful behavior in this forum. The forum is presently under review, as stated in an earlier thread. I'm restating it here for all who visit and post in this forum.

If you have not read the guidelines for this forum, read these two posts now:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092
These topics are often emotionally charged, but we ask that that NatureScapes.Net guidelines be adhered to. Our site is for the discussion of nature photography [emphasis added] issues in a friendly and civil manner. Posts outside the guidelines will be moderated. A specific concern for this forum is name calling and verbal abuse of people just because of the view they hold, whether they are posting in our forums or hold a position in political office.
...
G. Briney

by pleverington on Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:17 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Gary Briney wrote:As Royce's original post makes clear, the emphasis is on nature photography -- after all the website is primarily a photography site. There's no need for a legalistic harangue splitting hairs -- the precipitating issue leading to this thread has been the adversarial behavior of contributors in this forum. Take a hint. ;)
Royce Howland wrote:Recently there has been a decline in the level of productive, respectful behavior in this forum. The forum is presently under review, as stated in an earlier thread. I'm restating it here for all who visit and post in this forum.

If you have not read the guidelines for this forum, read these two posts now:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 37&t=35092
These topics are often emotionally charged, but we ask that that NatureScapes.Net guidelines be adhered to. Our site is for the discussion of nature photography [emphasis added] issues in a friendly and civil manner. Posts outside the guidelines will be moderated. A specific concern for this forum is name calling and verbal abuse of people just because of the view they hold, whether they are posting in our forums or hold a position in political office.
...
Well look Gary, what's wrong with some debate??  I know what the website is about, been here over ten years now. I also know what the end reason is for our photography and that would be to benefit the nature and wildlife itself, enhance our experience of it and so on. There's no serious adversarial stuff going on that's just overeating to think so I believe. I get your hint, but that was not at all made point of before. What was made issue was that if it doesn't directly pertain to photography then it's a no go. But the guidelines specifically say "Nature and Nature photography".  Clearly no one has broken the guidelines. If it's something else, then say that and address that, instead of insisting the premise is only the does it pertain to photography aspect . I think I just want to know for sure are we ok going forward discussing and bringing up subjects if they pertain mostly to just Nature things?

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Gary Briney on Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:09 pm
User avatar
Gary Briney
Lifetime Member
Posts: 18291
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Location: USA
Member #:00336
By the way, I do not believe "overeating" [sic] is the problem. :)
G. Briney

by Scott Fairbairn on Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:44 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Clarification is always a good thing. Even if not everyone agrees. It's a private website and the owners make the rules even if the users disagree. My contribution to the issue is my belief of trolling. But it's not my site.

by Royce Howland on Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:04 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Paul, I work typically 80 - 100 hours a week, and generally speaking have an extensive set of priorities outside of NSN with as many as 4 - 5 other organizations or projects at a time. It's very often not high on my list to have to keep coming here to deal with things. It so happens I'm doing a bit more of it right now because: a) there's more crap than usual happening here in EC&E; and b) Greg and E.J. are both away. I'm hardly "shunning" you, for God's sake; I simply have many other things to deal with.

For the time being, I have been about as clear as I think is possible on the guidelines. This is a nature photography web site, and the guidelines pretty much universally state topics are to be relevant to nature photography. In one case you have pointed out the additional use of the word "nature" in Greg's post re: EC&E, but note that it's within the phrase "nature and nature photography", not just "nature full stop". We deliberately do not attempt to legislate the living daylights out of the guidelines, because as you yourself are fond of noting there is a natural ebb & flow to discussion within a healthy community.

We have let MANY topics go that are of general EC&E interest, but moderation remains exclusively the purview of the ownership, editorial and moderator teams. We typically intervene when something is egregious, or when people begin going at each other rather than discussing issues. Clearly people HAVE bent or broken the guidelines in our view, or we wouldn't have been forced into the series of interventions that have ended up here. Do you think we have the time for this, and enjoy spending it on little chats like this? Far from it.

To reiterate what I stated at the top of this thread, this forum is under review. We may or may not change or clarify things further in the future. I you don't like it, can't wait for anything to be communicated, or feel your entitlements are being trod upon by how we run things here, you're of course free to move on at any time.

I will now return to my overeating, or whatever.
Royce Howland

by OntPhoto on Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:52 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Royce Howland wrote:Paul, I work typically 80 - 100 hours a week, and generally speaking have an extensive set of priorities outside of NSN with as many as 4 - 5 other organizations or projects at a time.  I will now return to my overeating, or whatever.

That's a busy schedule. This is another reason why I can't believe anyone has time to engage in  nonsense.  Think I can speak for many in the same boat, those working full-time. When not at work I have a load of stuff to catch up on.  Whatever precious time is left, I try and get out for some photography or just to be outside. 

How does one find the time to eat with such a busy schedule.  :lol:

by pleverington on Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:49 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Royce Howland wrote:Paul, I work typically 80 - 100 hours a week, and generally speaking have an extensive set of priorities outside of NSN with as many as 4 - 5 other organizations or projects at a time. It's very often not high on my list to have to keep coming here to deal with things. It so happens I'm doing a bit more of it right now because: a) there's more crap than usual happening here in EC&E; and b) Greg and E.J. are both away. I'm hardly "shunning" you, for God's sake; I simply have many other things to deal with.

For the time being, I have been about as clear as I think is possible on the guidelines. This is a nature photography web site, and the guidelines pretty much universally state topics are to be relevant to nature photography. In one case you have pointed out the additional use of the word "nature" in Greg's post re: EC&E, but note that it's within the phrase "nature and nature photography", not just "nature full stop". We deliberately do not attempt to legislate the living daylights out of the guidelines, because as you yourself are fond of noting there is a natural ebb & flow to discussion within a healthy community.

We have let MANY topics go that are of general EC&E interest, but moderation remains exclusively the purview of the ownership, editorial and moderator teams. We typically intervene when something is egregious, or when people begin going at each other rather than discussing issues. Clearly people HAVE bent or broken the guidelines in our view, or we wouldn't have been forced into the series of interventions that have ended up here. Do you think we have the time for this, and enjoy spending it on little chats like this? Far from it.

To reiterate what I stated at the top of this thread, this forum is under review. We may or may not change or clarify things further in the future. I you don't like it, can't wait for anything to be communicated, or feel your entitlements are being trod upon by how we run things here, you're of course free to move on at any time.

I will now return to my overeating, or whatever.
Royce HowlandPaul, I work typically 80 - 100 hours a week, and generally speaking have an extensive set of priorities outside of NSN with as many as 4 - 5 other organizations or projects at a time. It's very often not high on my list to have to keep coming here to deal with things. It so happens I'm doing a bit more of it right now because: a) there's more crap than usual happening here in EC&E; and b) Greg and E.J. are both away. I'm hardly "shunning" you, for God's sake; I simply have many other things to deal with.


Well Royce I'm sorry your working so many hours --of course I can understand. But you are a moderator. This all comes with the job, so it's rather puzzling that you seem to feel you shouldn't have to be here. You don't think I and others are busy and our time very valuable?? Don't you realize how much time we spend to participate in the forum in the hopes it just might make a difference with what we all love and want to photograph? How dare you rub it in our faces that your time is more valuable than ours.


For the time being, I have been about as clear as I think is possible on the guidelines. This is a nature photography web site, and the guidelines pretty much universally state topics are to be relevant to nature photography. In one case you have pointed out the additional use of the word "nature" in Greg's post re: EC&E, but note that it's within the phrase "nature and nature photography", not just "nature full stop". We deliberately do not attempt to legislate the living daylights out of the guidelines, because as you yourself are fond of noting there is a natural ebb & flow to discussion within a healthy community.



The statement "Nature and Nature photography means Nature and nature photography Royce. No matter how, or why your trying to spin it some other way, that is what it says. It's plain English that Greg meant both. Your grabbin for straws with that.. Now surely you can understand the confusion this and the fact we have always been discussing nature issues alone for their own sake since the beginning is causing. I understand these two things are not the more caustic stuff that is of concern. I'll let you guys worry on that  if that is really a problem. Mine and others concern is what content is allowed or welcome. A lot of us know that photography, for as much as it is self gratifying, is not going to make a heck of a lot of difference in the long run for what is important to the nature itself, and then of course to even have it then photograph. Political action, letter writing, hands on volunteering, community awareness and involvement, fund raising all can be helped along in the forum. For me it's the most valued forum of them all on the site for the benefit of those things. I understand you may want to keep the site just about photography period for reasons of simplification, and that you guys have ultimate authority, you guys have the power at least to say. But do you understand your site is nothing without us? Have you gotten a little too far from this fact??  This all precipitated from my post on meat eating which until the "photography related" issue was brought up was a completely benign thread like so many others, hundreds of others, in fact  in the forum. FWIW the site would be a much better one if we did discuss nature and wildlife issues as a matter of program. I don't even recall any misbehavior with the posts in the recent past you keep referring to. All of a sudden things get onerous over the "photography related" issue? Why now I guess I would ask.


We have let MANY topics go that are of general EC&E interest, but moderation remains exclusively the purview of the ownership, editorial and moderator teams. We typically intervene when something is egregious, or when people begin going at each other rather than discussing issues. Clearly people HAVE bent or broken the guidelines in our view, or we wouldn't have been forced into the series of interventions that have ended up here. Do you think we have the time for this, and enjoy spending it on little chats like this? Far from it.

Yeah Royce here it is again, my time is more valuable than yours thing. To you I'm sure it is, but this is an insult to infer only your time matters. I and others have spent much part of a day many a day trying to get some truth out there about what is destroying the planets ecosystems. That should count for something don't you feel?? I feel you should re-evaluate some of your thinking and understand it's not just you, or your way of viewing stuff. Our community can benefit greatly with the increase of awareness of issues of the environment is what I believe. Besides, it adds another dimension to the site by keeping it that much more interesting. The more people linger and find interest, the more they will be back. It makes a lot of business and economic sense. Using myself as an example I may visit the site once a week for images and latest news in photography, but will visit once a day for news that directly relate to nature itself. I bet I'm not alone on this. Sincerely though, try and see things from the members viewpoint. It's a huge blunder not to run with this and make the site much more engaging with the inclusion of what is in reality at the fundamental level  and what it's all about.

To reiterate what I stated at the top of this thread, this forum is under review. We may or may not change or clarify things further in the future. I you don't like it, can't wait for anything to be communicated, or feel your entitlements are being trod upon by how we run things here, you're of course free to move on at any time.

I will now return to my overeating, or whatever.

Sorry to interrupt your gorging or whatever Royce, my bad I guess. But your the moderator-no?? Tis your job Right? So when called upon or when you think it's all just so silly you shirk?? You really believe such strong arm talk is warranted..or appreciated Royce?? You say your trying to eliminate disrespectful and combative rhetoric, and you come out with that statement of "My way or no way or the highway...Really?? What a fine example you've made. Honestly Royce, there wasn't any problem at all till there was one made by management, so why don't the moderators go away instead of those who were of no problem at all in the first place. Really pretty amazed at your guff attitude here. If you are not up to the job, either are not willing, wanting, or having the time you should consider handing the baton to someone else. Gary made better point than anyone else did so far and did so in like two sentences, WITHOUT alienating anyone...  I've got nothing against you Royce, but your last statement is way out of line, quite rude actually, condescending and unwarranted. I don't want to be here either but things forced that to happen, things that were not even an issue the way I see.

See..I just expended 45 minutes of my time Royce..just for you..  Your a great guy and I love the wealth of sharing you do, but I'm believing at this point your moderating abilities and/or commitments are in question. Best work on problems, not heavy hand them I feel.

Just sayin...


Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"


Last edited by pleverington on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:25 pm, edited 12 times in total.

by pleverington on Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:53 pm
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
OntPhoto wrote:
Royce Howland wrote:Paul, I work typically 80 - 100 hours a week, and generally speaking have an extensive set of priorities outside of NSN with as many as 4 - 5 other organizations or projects at a time.  I will now return to my overeating, or whatever.

That's a busy schedule. This is another reason why I can't believe anyone has time to engage in  nonsense.  Think I can speak for many in the same boat, those working full-time. When not at work I have a load of stuff to catch up on.  Whatever precious time is left, I try and get out for some photography or just to be outside. 

How does one find the time to eat with such a busy schedule.  :lol:
You feel better now Ontphoto?  If it's nonsense why did you even show up?? To pile on maybe??   Brownies?  Where I live that's called a cheap shot. But maybe you do have a solution to the problem if so why don't you share?

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:26 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Well said Paul. I call it Trolling when multiple posts are made about a controversial subject with the sole purpose of watching what happens with the stated objective of not engaging in the debate. If that isn't nonsense then I'm not sure what is.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
35 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group