While I was no fan of some of DPR's approach to this subject - at least there rules and standards of behaviour AND a process for reporting obvious violations -- what are the standards here and processes for enforcement?
Steve Perry and the BCG team settled on a few very simple rules - which simply put are BE NICE and Do Not Troll.
Regrettably I am already noticing some users on this forum are being deliberately antagonistic and I do not see a route to correct their behaviour. Please tell me I am wrong and guide me to the rules/standards and processes. If I am not then the team may want to look at this.
May 2, 2023
100
-
-
This is not DPReview. "Trolling" is not having a different opinion than yours.
-
But expressing it in derogatory and insulting manner is.
-
Even insisting on alternative facts is not trolling.
-
A fact is a fact -- measurable testable and repeatable -- what the heck is an ALTERNATIVE FACT?
So you disagree with what someone has said -- OK. But when they provide evidence to support their hypothesis -- YOU need to provide conflicting evidence that supports what you are claiming OR not claim your POV as being a """""FACT""""". This is how the world works. -
What you are saying used to be true.
-
'Correcting bad behaviour' is complex. What is 'bad behaviour' is not well defined, and many approaches to ;correction' either exacerbate it, or suppress behaviour which is not bad. We are in the process of developing an approach. It takes time because we want to do it with the support of the community. Look around you'll see several threads on the topic in the 'Governance' category.
-
You sign-in yesterday and already notice some deliberate antagonism? Odd.
-
Andy is the one who went off the head at Primeshooter below. Talk about walking in the door with a chip on his shoulder. If he didn't like the question and didn't like Primeshooter scroll on by and don't answer.
-
If you can read between the lines there's a fair description of trolls here ;-)
web.archive.org/web/20201111190814/http://newcameranews.com/2014/06/02/trolling-for-dummies/I have yet to see trolling here but there's, well, a few provocative members I remember from "the old site". I don't mind a fresh discussion but hope people will respect, well, other people and their opinion. And talk nice to eachother. As someone else mentioned the "hard" talk may scare some potential good members away when they read some of the posts here. I was in on day one here for a reason. Had I waited 2-3 weeks I might have gotten other ideas.
That said I like the way things are handeled and think a high ceiling is a good thing :-D
-
Hi Andy
How about your post in the Z forum?
Is this good or bad behaviour? Is this deliberate antagonism or not?
-
on the new dprevivedarguments nothing will change
-
@AndyMillerPhoto has written:
Try not being a dick perhaps that would help. LOL -
Be your own moderator. Simply ignore those who annoy you.
Moderation ruins the flow of honest comment and turns forums into "group think" facilities.
-
"A fact is a fact" is a little simplistic. Very often two or more "facts" can be established about the same event/thing/outcome through various tests.
History, particularly the history of WWII, is riddled with any number of facts relating to various issues.
-
It's also why a guy shot himself in the head because a bunch of morons wouldn't stop screaming at him that his dead kid was fake.
I miss gatekeeping in media. I liked it when morons and bad faith actors had a really hard time getting traction in popularity. I like moderation in forums because it reminds me it's possible to still be done. It's the one place where there can still be a space for discussion with less riffraffery than I can encounter in various larger websites and real life. I've seen what no moderation looks like, with 4chan and its digital beaches full of racism, sexism, bigotry, and all sorts of unpleasantness. There's not a lot of space for that in photography. Certainly, images can provoke discussions about it, but in general conversation, it serves no purpose but harm, either here, or anywhere else it flows freely. I'd like to hope no one is here to hurt others purposely with photography and if they are, let them quickly be shown the door so the rest of us can be in peace as much as we can.
-
Oh wow -- I'm surprised anyone doesn't know this. OK, let me explain via example. A bunch of scientists come up with a theory and test it exhaustively. Maybe a couple of the tests don't verify the theory, but the vast, vast, vast majority do. So, they call their theory their theory a "fact" -- e.g. the Earth is [more or less] a sphere.
An "alternative fact" is a "fact" that disagrees with the other facts, usually because the person doesn't "feel" they are true. For example, "The government is trying to tell us the Earth is a sphere to control us, when it's obvious the Earth is flat." And this "alternative fact" is every bit as valid as the actual facts, because, of course, one "feels" that it is.
It makes so much sense that I'm surprised I have to explain it.
Yeah, but what if I don't "feel" they are right? My feelings count as much, if not more, than their "facts". Or are you just going to keep living your life the same as the other sheeple do?
🤣🤣🤣
-
Aren't alternative facts what an ex-world leader, whose name escapes me at the moment, was spreading during his reign?
