I'm of the opinion that Bob, Alan and the admin team have earned our trust and respect through the time and effort invested in creating the community and involving the membership in the creation of the TOS and member guidelines.
If Mako had been moderating this thread, how many people would have been sandboxed?
- 28 votes.
- Started by bobn2 on May 2, 2023.
-
-
To be perfectly honest, I don't think either thing has happened. The conversation hasn't really ever been about asking for or receiving advice. More about being given information, all of it relevant - but not necessarily in a way you'd expect.
-
a new one will only start, and then we'll be in the battle of wills that characterised life with Mako.
-
It is not at the discretion of a member of DPRevived to choose to treat any other forum member with disrespect. Per the Member Guidelines Bob has shared...
You may not post or upload content which is liable to cause harm or
distress to other people, including personal abuse and offensive
discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent
characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that might
threaten social peace.This is much more complex. The last part is the UN definition of
'hate speech', which must very definitely be kept off the site under
all circumstances. Content that is liable to cause harm or distress
is clearly more of a judgment. As a site, we will make that judgment
and remove material that we believe falls the wrong side. We would
much prefer it if our members make an appropriate judgment for
themselves, so we don't have to. Here are some guidelines.Be empathetic. Something that would cause you distress would be
likely to cause others distress -- so don't subject others to
behaviour that you would not want inflicted on you.Be aware of the medium. In face to face interaction we get cues
that give us feedback about how other people are reacting to
what we say. We don't get that over the web. So, one person
might think they are making a joke, whilst the other might find
what is said is insulting. Err on the safe side.Be culturally aware. What people find distressing differs, and
this is an international site. Profanity, nudity and content of
a sexual nature can all fall foul of this difference. The Web is
not short of places where these types of subject can be
indulged, so don't use this one. All it will do is make this a
place where a lot of people don't want to be.Don't be nasty. There is no real reason to descend to abuse and
name calling, so don't do it. In the end it weakens your side of
the argument.Argue constructively. Robust and interesting discussions are at
the heart of the reason people come to this kind of site, but
let's keep them constructive. If you disagree with someone,
state why you disagree, don't just keep contradicting -- that
just results in your interlocutor becoming irritated. Don't
resort to ad-hominem arguments. They are always fallacious and
don't improve the tone of the conversation. Don't take umbrage
because your opinion is disputed, that's what discussion is
about. Show respect for the other party -- you might think you
have more experience and know better, but you could easily be
wrong.Don't participate in bullying. We know how it works in the
school yard, the gang picks on the guy with the unpopular
opinions. Don't do it here.Be sympathetic. All types come to this forum, including people
from different backgrounds, different cultures, the
neuro-divergent and people with different life histories who
have been through traumas you don't know about. You may think
that their behaviour is unreasonable, but there may be many
reasons for it. Don't make the situation worse by picking
disputes even if you feel that the other party is.This is what I am referring to when stating that all members deserve to be treated with respect. I'm not talking about holding their actions or opinions in high regard. I'm talking about observing at least a minimum degree of courteousness in all interactions. We don't criticize or debate the value of a person. Disagreement over opinions about photographic equipment, practices and the quality of a photo are, of course, allowed. One could argue those disagreements are encouraged. But the expectation is that no member will conduct themselves in a manner that could be construed as bullying or as targeting another person in a manner that would cause that person distress.
In short, no DPRevived member has a right to treat any other member in a disrespectful manner in the forums or through the site's IM tool.
Treating other members with respect simple means following the member guidelines. It has nothing to do with whether or not your like the person or agree with the opinions they express. Disliking a person is not justification for treating them in manner a reasonable person would construe as bullying or distressful in the forums or through the site's IM tool. Disagreeing with a stated opinion is also not justification for disrespectful treatment of another member.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
-
You just have selective attention. There are people who can walk through a bank robbery and not notice a thing at all, because they live inside their head...
-
Extremely hard to follow your post with all the quotes, quotes within quotes, etc. However................
I'm starting to realize why the Bible (someone's bible) says that the meek will inherit the earth. We, the non-meek, have tied ourselves up by pansying around with wording to not offend anyone, we've made it so vague, that all someone has to say is "this offends me" or "that offends me" and everything gets shut down to accommodate the meek, which in most cases is a "feign meek"
An old buddy of mine had a saying for dealing with those types "F^@# 'em if they can't take a joke."
Wording such as "You may not post or upload content which is liable to cause harm or distress to other people", "one person might think they are making a joke, whilst the other might find what is said is insulting." "Be sympathetic." Now while all this is pretty and tidy, it will be abused by people who've never grown any balls, you won't be able to speak without someone using it against you, hence the need for "facilitators" which to me has connotations of someone leading you to the gallows, gas chamber or whatever.
And light moderation as DPReview called it will turn into Kim Jong Un moderation. The couple of people here that I might say went too far when speaking to Bob should get a gentle reminder by PM to tone it down, if you're going to ban anyone ban the ones coming here saying I never had a problem with Mako (as if well I just don't belief anyone possibly could), anoint a supreme ruler, as nothing will run by consensus, and just get on with it.
-
TOShooter, go jump off the Bloor Viaduct.
-
The right person and you'd be in court. :) :) :)
They put up a barrier to keep me in (and Mother Nature out)
-
Insert eyeroll here...
Bit over the top there Bill, and I say that with the utmost respect, in case it triggers an inner snowflake in you.
-
I think you are the one who is over the top here. The name of this site is not DPRevenge
-
Wanting to close 'open discussion' over a topic that produces discomfort for some is not a valid argument. People do not want DPReplication!
-
You need to separate the different document. The 'Terms of Service' is the legal backstop. That defines the legal relationship between the Foundation and users of the site. Obviously, it's impossible to detail every single case that we think might cause us to have to terminate our relationship with a user, so we do the usual legal thing and use the test of the 'reasonable person'. Here's how it works in reality. Suppose you call another member a 'pedo guy' in the course of a discussion on whether 'f-number' should be denoted with or without a '/' character. Our facilitator Moka1102 notifies the management, resulting in a ban for this life and any other that may or may not follow. Unbeknown to us, IRL you are the bazillionaire Lone Skum and you immediately lawyer up and sue us for unjustified denial of service. However, the person you insulted was squillionare Geoff Zobes, who donates some of his squillions for out legal defence. When the whole thing comes to court the case revolves around whether a reasonable person would have though being called a 'pedo guy' would be, in the opinion of a reasonable person, likely to cause harm or distress. The top-notch lawyers spend two months at $10,000 per hour trying to persuade the jury one way or the other. If the jury thinks that the reasonable person would find what you said harmful or distressing, we win and you pay most of your bazillions paying our legal costs. If they don't think so, you win. the Foundation goes bankrupt, the members bay out £1 each to cover the insolvency and you are still bazillions out of pocket. The latter is the advantage of limited liability. You may think it's stupid, but that's how the law works.
Our job controlling content is to make a judgment on what the court would think that the reasonable person would thinks, so we don't get bankrupted by hostile bazillionaires.
The Guidelines for members, which say thing like 'Be sympathetic' don't have the same legal standing, they are just our advice to users as to how to behave if you want this to be a good place.
One of both DPReview and Mako's problems was not keeping the delineation as clear as it should have been. -
We need a separate forum called dprevenge.com.
-
-
You said something of the kind that if you have to have a list of people to have as mods, he would not be near the bottom of that list or similar.
I would have never replied to his email/PM, as simple as that.
BTW, the police in totalitarian states are very good in dealing with petty crime.
-
URL secured. How would you like us to use it?
-
Which is not at all the same thing as saying I'd be willing to consider hiring that person. As it is, I know of DPRMods who are much worse, so if there were a list, they'd go further down.
Then you'd have lost several opportunities. One would have been to have someone watching our back when it came to all the nonsense flying about. Another would have been a load of information on the operation of DPReviews moderations systems, the reason why someone who thought himself to be doing a good job found himself to be so hated, and quite a bit more. You'd also have been uncourteous.
-
Come on, you're going to bankrupt me, securing new URLs.
