Moderation

I did so as well , Mako2011
He would delete posts without rhyme or reason, then sandboxed me, no idea why. Truly no idea. He loved that power trip they let him have at DPR.

Why don't we get AI to take the photos too? AND run this forum. LOL!

On second thoughts, I won't show that image just yet. It might get back.

That’s the ‘be nice’ rule that bobn2 so hates.

@bobn2 your OP mentions lack of clear rules at DPR being an issue, so I take it that this thread is a place to discuss possible rules for this forum. I have a couple of suggestions.

Firstly, I think that trolling a forum’s core topic should be forbidden. If the core topic is a camera brand, then fans of other brands or haters of the topic brand cannot troll the brand. There is a fine line between constructive criticism of the core topic and trolling it, but IMHO it makes a far more pleasant environment if the forum mod is fairly strict. People come to a camera brand forum mostly because they are owners and want to learn more about using their camera or help others make better use of their camera an encourage a good feeling about owning and using the brand, and it makes them feel bad about their pride and joy if some people keep posting there (more than once as a fair criticism and wish to improve the brand) how inferior it is or how the company is crap etc.

Secondly, I think providing CC on a photo (including a modified version of the photo to illustrate the feedback) should be allowed unless the photo owner expressly asks for no CC when posting the photo, instead of the reverse. DPR used to have it the ‘right’ way round, then they flipped it, because they were having a specific issue with someone trolling the landscape photos forum with unwelcome CC. IMHO they dealt with it the wrong way and infringed on international fair use rights with their response, instead of dealing with the troll.

I agree; it gives the mods very little guidance as to what's acceptable and what isn't. That makes an individual mod's arbitrary judgements not just possible, but necessary! That's not a pleasant situation for a mod who wants to get it right, but can't always be sure they did...

OTOH, even a long list of carefully defined rules will have a hard time covering every possibility.

I don't know the answer to achieving a balance, but I'm reading the comments here with considerable interest.

Good to see you here!

Here's my experience with senseless / ridiculous moderation...

Teila: "I agree with BurnImage’s stance on the matter - If you’re doing street photography that’s predicated on a lot of action (protesters and their violent interaction with police, etc..) as opposed to more static shots, you may want to give up a smidgen of image quality for more capable/quicker autofocusing and much higher frame rate."

MODERATOR:: "FYI your recent post in the medium format forum was deleted for its political content. Please stick to photographic subjects.

(as if photographing people rioting, marching, protesting hasn't been a mainstay in reportage photography for decades)

MODERATOR:: "This is a photographic website. Please avoid off-topic political statements and stick to photography. Thank you.

(Since when did reportage/documentation photography become "off-topic" in the discussion of what cameras are most ideal for a particular task?)

(Date -May 18, 2022 at 22:54 UTC)

Less than 15 days later, DPreview publishes an article on June 3, 2022:
"Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Nick Ut reflects on the day he captured the iconic image known as 'Terror of War' and 'Napalm Girl'

So, I get "moderated" for making an obvious photography-relevant comment that using fast focusing cameras may be worth taking a small hit on image quality in order to get the shot, etc.. yet, some moderator somehow thinks that the mere mention of "protesters and their violent interactions with police, etc.." even as a street photography/reportage/journalistic e-x-a-m-p-l-e in the context of how a photographer can benefit with the right photographic tool, constitutes getting "political". That's like someone mentioning Grand Canyon and 8x10 view cameras in the context of getting the most detail, and some moderator accusing the person of "delving into environmental politics" by the mere mention of a canyon.

…. but an article by DPreview depicting a photograph of a girl in the midst of war, physically affected by napalm is somehow kittens, rainbows and baby’s breath and not political, even when the Vietnam War was entrenched in American politics. Absolutely ridiculous moderation.

Adding insult, the moderation refused to tell me what exactly triggered the deletion of what I thought was a rather benign post. That's like giving someone a fine, without telling them exactly what they did wrong.

I've never been banned at any time, anywhere on the internet. My 17 years of posting on DPreview was factual, non-inflammatory and well-grounded.
While I do not mind moderation, I strongly feel that moderation needs to be done by reasonably intelligent adults who can easily comprehend the concept of situational context and relevance. Most of the moderators that I encountered on DPreview did a splendid job.

It is an impressive thing that this is a conversation topic and that people are putting their minds together to broker a solution that stands on good reason. Bravo.

Looking forward to the successes of this site.

Yes, a long list of carefully defined rules will not cover every possibility, but a long list of carefully defined rules will definitely cover many, many more possibilities and scenarios than a blanket single rule of "Be Nice".

Moderation = Censorship = controlling what people can talk about.

These are slippery slopes.

IMO, we need to err on the side of freedom of speech and expression.

Spam is usually not a problem in closed forums like this.

Nothing wrong with flamewars.

Personal insults are difficult as I have observed different people have different feelings about what is a personal insult. Maybe if many people report a post as insulting then its okay to act on it, but not because some moderator thinks they know best.

Political and religious agendas are again problematic; mostly they are like spam, so it is unusual to see a lot of it in closed forums dedicated to photography.

I am not keen on people with special moderation powers; all people who think they know what is best and want to decide for others are dangerous. If readers complain about something that's fair, and so if a post got complaints from a large number of people (> 20 maybe) that could merit action.

You have to remember that for years DPreview didn't have moderation and everything was fine. I can't remember when they started moderation, probably after Amazon acquired it. Corporations like Amazon have to enforce moderation due to issues they can get into. And usually its to protect the Corporation not us.

Neither is censorship per se. Moderation is censorship. On the other hand, you may argue that some censorship is good.

With a free site I accept whatever moderation the Bonzen wish to apply. If it gets too frustrating/ludicrous I just stop showing up.

It's not like there are money or health consequences involved.

@Dibyendu
Moderation at dpreview was introduced in the fall of 2012

Moderation - as applied to a forum is to guide in a way to prevent excesses and extremes and to keep a discussion on the original topic in a civil manner. One of the common issues with DPR was at some point the discussion was off significantly off topic and the original intent was lost. The Mods would for the most part would do a good job keeping the threads on track but some would still end up in the weeds. Moderation is not censorship. DPR was owned and funded by Amazon. We hear all sorts of "freedom of speech" arguments against moderation. However, there is little justification applied to privately owned corporations. Amazon could dictate the terms and conditions of the use of their DPR forums because they owned them. The same here, the owner of the site can set the terms and conditions of the use. If one cannot abide by the set terms and conditions, then they should go elsewhere.