People, NY FBI bribing you

[Overread17 5]

I never said he was a spambot - I'm saying that the original post looked just like a spambot post.

As for where the line becomes between political statements and medical and psychological commentary that is an area I'm not even going to try and draw a line between. But I still repeat that it likely would have gone a lot smoother if there had been an introduction by the photographer in this situation as opposed to simply the copy/paste from the persons website.

 

[pixmedic]

I never said he was a spambot - I'm saying that the original post looked just like a spambot post.

As for where the line becomes between political statements and medical and psychological commentary that is an area I'm not even going to try and draw a line between. But I still repeat that it likely would have gone a lot smoother if there had been an introduction by the photographer in this situation as opposed to simply the copy/paste from the persons website.

I still miss the husky...the owl is cool though.

 

[The_Traveler]

It was my choice not to put any 'explanation'.
In thriller movies, there isn't usually a subtitle that says 'scary thing coming'
I wanted the viewer to see the picture, then read the text and make the connection.

I quoted his site as 'editorial comment' and it was clearly within the fair use doctrine allowed by copyright.
Taking away the text without any explanation beyond the incorrect 'political commentary' was wrong.

How would the mods respond to these images?

If you can't distinguish between the deleted text, these images and inappropriate political rages, then you haven't got your stuff together - and you should.

 

[pixmedic]

It was my choice not to put any 'explanation'.
In thriller movies, there isn't usually a subtitle that says 'scary thing coming'
I wanted the viewer to see the picture, then read the text and make the connection.

I quoted his site as 'editorial comment' and it was clearly within the fair use doctrine allowed by copyright.
Taking away the text without any explanation beyond the incorrect 'political commentary' was wrong.

How would the mods respond to these images?

If you can't distinguish between the deleted text, these images and inappropriate political rages, then you haven't got your stuff together - and you should.

AAAAAHHHH Political and Religious context!! QUICK! DELETE THEM! AGAINST FORUM RULES!
im obviously jumping to conclusions but...I dont want to actually have to...*GASP*..."THINK" before i do something.

 

[KmH]

Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html

In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.

The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.

 

[pixmedic]

Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html

In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.

The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.

so what about the gun threads that didn't get censured or deleted because they "didn't get ugly"? couldn't this thread have been left alone under the same assertion? I'm just trying to understand the process (or lack of one) because "we cant please everyone" and "we're people too" seems to be the generic battle cry lately for "don't ask why we do what we do..just accept it and move on"

 

[The_Traveler]

Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html

In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.

The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.

This was not a political discussion.
This was quoted to enlarge an understanding of the image.

Who was this attempting to please?

 

[Overread17 5]

Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html

In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.

The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.

so what about the gun threads that didn't get censured or deleted because they "didn't get ugly"? couldn't this thread have been left alone under the same assertion? I'm just trying to understand the process (or lack of one) because "we cant please everyone" and "we're people too" seems to be the generic battle cry lately for "don't ask why we do what we do..just accept it and move on"

When a hotbutton topic is made (or indeed any potential problem thread is brought to moderator attention) the mods do have a period of pre-emptive action. Sometimes you look at a thread and, eh, you just know its going to go bad. Maybe from the original post or maybe a couple of early posts that indicate the very likely direction of the remaining thread. At this point sometimes innocent threads are moderated (content adjusted/removed) in order to attempt to prevent a later fall out.
Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. In general the intent is to limit/prevent a problem situation occurring before it actually happens or to stop it way before it gets more heated.

 

[pixmedic]

When a hotbutton topic is made (or indeed any potential problem thread is brought to moderator attention) the mods do have a period of pre-emptive action. Sometimes you look at a thread and, eh, you just know its going to go bad. Maybe from the original post or maybe a couple of early posts that indicate the very likely direction of the remaining thread. At this point sometimes innocent threads are moderated (content adjusted/removed) in order to attempt to prevent a later fall out.
Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. In general the intent is to limit/prevent a problem situation occurring before it actually happens or to stop it way before it gets more heated.

I think this is haphazardly enforced, but i appreciate your candor, and i appreciate the explanation.

 

[The_Traveler]

OK, this time it was a clear failure.
There was no arguement.
There was no impending arguement.
The moderation removed an important part of the post.

Return the text.