Just to note - if threads or posts which have nothing to do with photography are started or responded to, I will move them out to the Dumpster.
If you think this is wrong, tough. I want to see this site develop as a photography site, not a playground for arguments.
Alan
[edited to add 'or posts']
How about threads that start off relevant to photography, and are then hijacked by non-relevant bickering?
David
That's all good but you only mention threads unrelated to photography and not posts within legitimate threads that go off the rails..
A useful feature, if it hasn't already been suggested elsewhere, is a Complain button on each post similar to those on DPReview. I found them very effective when I clicked on some of Donald's posts there.
Any legitimately "off-topic" posts complained about could then easily be transferred to the Dumpster or better yet, simply deleted/hidden from public view.
Prey tell me why threads go off the rails, and who sends them off the rails.
You've just answered your own question 😀
You are an excellent example of someone trying to derail a thread with your post 😁 Good one NCV 👍
I will split out the hijacked posts - as I have already done.
Alan
Alan,
I saw that you have indeed deleted part of a conversation that I was also a part of.
Actually, I was trying to do "my job" there as the usual thread starter for that C&C thread.
(I am not a moderator, but some kinda "guardian" of that tradition, with a few others.)
My job, that is : I was (in a non-agressive way, with some humour and reason) encouraging contributors to keep conversations ON the rails.
I do understand your approach and also your methods.
After all, you must use a fairly blunt instrument. Your attention is required in many places. I just watch the one thread.
But actually I felt that the conversation was heading in the right direction and we were getting where we needed to be.
The biggest heat had cooled off, and I really felt we were getting back on track and hopefully to stay there (also in future weeks).
Anyway, I do appreciate your undoubtedly good intentions.
Roel
It is impossible for someone to bicker by themselves. If people don't like bickering then they just shouldn't engage in it. Engaging in it includes responding to points that one personally might feel to be pedantic, calling out people who make those posts, saying that other people's posts are 'irrelevant', lobbying to get sanctions made agains people you think are bickering and all similar actions.
If you don't like a post, simply don't respond. If others respond and bickering ensues, don't amplify it by engaging in discussions about it. All that's needed is a bit of self discipline.
Bob & Alan,
I totally agree -- in principle.
But in a forum with relatively light moderation, there is also an informal system of "policing" by the long time participants (and thread starters, as I am for that particular weekly thread), gently reminding participants to stay on topic and to avoid impolite or aggressive off-topic posts.
It's not moderation. It's more like mediation. No sharp teeth or enforcement, but diplomacy.
Mind you, I am glad that there is moderation, and I understand that some people actively ask moderators to intervene.
In this case, I did not ask for it. (Someone else did, vocally.)
This does not mean that I think there should be (or should have been) NO intervention.
I was just still (optimistic or maybe naive) believing that we could get everybody back on track by just reasonable responses.
And if that works, it is better because (hopefully) more a stimulus for better behaviour in the future.
I believe in the carrot more than in the stick.
(I do acknowledge that sometimes a stick is necessary, and also that a moderator often ONLY has a stick.)
All well.
Sorry Roel,
I got a bit too exuberant in my culling. I'll try and be a little more careful.
Alan
No problem at all.
I understand the predicament of limited time, resources and blunt instruments.
Having to cope with just one thread, I can be more surgical. Although… surgical is not the right word.
With no real moderator or admin powers I can only apply ointment and hope it helps. I lack the scalpel to excize a real tumor, but I am cocky enough to think that my chemotherapy was working…
Cheers and good evening!
In the end this isn't a matter of principle but practicality. A coherent moderation policy that doesn't result in unintended and bad results is very complicated. Without such a policy you're left with trusting the judgment of a set of moderators. To be comfortable with that you'd need a clear policy about selection of moderators, which is just about as difficult as a moderation policy. If wer had ended up as being the replacement for DPReview, we'd have had to do this. We have adopted both site conditions of service and a moderation policy, and under neither would the kind of diversions or behaviour that people have objected to be sanctioned. Further, despite people kindly donating, this covers day-to-day running expenses, not the sort of outlay that it would require to employ professional moderators, as the large social media sites do (DPReview doesn't pay theirs, which causes more problems). So in the end the outcome is this. We will deal with egregious misbehaviour, things which are potentially illegal or which we believe we would have near unanimity in removing. However, we can't be expected to act to trim and tune behaviour in ways that particular groups or factions here would prefer. Poor Alan, who is at heart still a sysadmin, trying to keep users happy, gets lobbied to do this or that to people that others feel are miscreants, but truly it is unreasonable to expect him to do so. To all those that are doing this, please stop. In the end, if we are a community then the solution is with the community. If you feel that someone's contribution is unhelpful, do what you'd do IRL, just don't interact with them. If others don't follow that policy, it's a shame, but if you join in you just make it worse.
Good thoughts.
And yes, that is exactly what I did: react like I would in real life.
If I ride the train and I see unacceptable behaviour from one passenger towards another, I will not look away but I will intervene, never with my fists (I would lose the fight and end up with a bloodied nose) but with open hands and an appeal to common sense and reason.
I might still get a black eye someday (UN Blue Helmets do get killed sometimes), but it hasn’t happened yet and I have defused a fair share of potentially explosive escalations just by stepping up and inbetween.
In the weekly C&C thread we share and cherish, I feel doubly inclined to don the blue helmet.
Hmmmm.......looking around some of the more commonly used forums here I see that threads unrelated to photography are extremely rare so I'm not sure why this thread even exists.
As suggested earlier this thread the real issue is posts within a thread going off the rails which are already being dealt with.
In any case there are more effective options elsewhere to inform and discuss topics unrelated to photography.
Thanks - I have updated the first post above to include 'or posts'.
Alan
That is 100% spot on 🙂
I have posted on several occasions when blame for arguing was attempted to be laid on only one member that it takes two to tango
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself but if you then also start answering yourself then you have a huge problem 😉
Just means that one likes to talk to a smart person.😀
I try to be civil and not react. However there are times when boundaries are crossed. Even then, I agree, better to ignore and not amplify. But everyone has their limits. And when I see orchestrated destructive behaviour, especially when it impacts a social environment like we have here, I am going to react to some degree. In recent times, for the benefit of others, I have kept quiet. But the gas is still on. The lid is on the pressure cooker. I never forget.
