Rule concerning social networking links

[runnah]

I think that discussion is for facebook, not here, at least not until she posts something of her own. It's kind of beside the point.

Really? Even though we get a lot of that here too?

But that isn't really the point of this thread. I was very specific in what I was calling for - a guideline or rule that prevents people from calling out random "bad photographers".

I personally don't care if you troll around looking for them, I just don't think this is the purpose of this site and I don't know what advantage there would be in a thread that specifically does that.

Agreed. As much fun as it is to hit the fat kid in dodgeball, it's not very sporting to hit him when isn't playing the game. Actually it's still fun. Hold on folks, this one got away from me.

 

[Derrel]

Rules designed to censor things usually lead to bad results. The original post is basically, ridiculous. The LAST thing we need is to be treated like grade-schoolers. If we have a rule prohibiting links to other sites, like Facebook, then we need a rule prohibiting links to EVERY SINGLE OTHER non-TPF URL in the universe-- in order to be consistent and fair. Great idea, huh! NOT...

Define "social media site"....that would include Facebook,Myspace, Linkedin, Pinterest, redit, slashdot, ad nauseum. My God...talk about effing ridiculous...

Seriously, unpopular, you might want to think about your big hero speech tomorrow, and re-post something that makes some actual sense, and which would actually be enforceable. Already, this ongoing, step-by-step-by step dumbing down of this forum to the lowest common denominator has led to the creation of a pay-to-peek nudie section, and the disallowing of so many issues. No politics, no film vs digital, etc.etc. Sorry, but your idea of protecting nameless, faceless, "potential" victims is the height of paranoia. But then...you might actually suffer from that.

PREVENTING "possible" problems with draconian decrees is the way fascist governments work. It's a stupid idea. Making dumb rules to take care of once-a-year lapses in judgement on the part of newbie posters is what moderators are for. We do not need new rules...we need mods.

 

[rexbobcat]

My opinion is that anyone who seriously cries because of what a bunch of Internet whoevers say on a generic forum probably needs more intimate real life connections.

It's not my problem when people let "trolls" (or helpful people they think are trolls) get to them.

We aren't threatening to burn their babies here. Nut up or shut up. For real.

 

[unpopular]

ok guys. seriously. calm down. don't you think comparing the dealings on TPF to Nazi Germany a little bit hyperbolic, are we really that first worldly?

if it can't be enforced then it obviously shouldn't be a guideline.

but if you don't want censorship, please, go hang out at 4chan. this whole thing would fit in nicely there.

 

[rexbobcat]

but if you don't want censorship, please, go hang out at 4chan. this whole thing would fit in nicely there.

You're the one who started the thread...

Surely you weren't under the assumption that it wasn't eventually going to devolve into something...

 

[unpopular]

meh. whatever.

 

[John27]

I'm all for making this forum all it can be, I can certainly see both sides to this one and the advantages and shortcomings of each.

This is a great place to be, though it can sometimes be intimidating for a new photographer. Some folks can make you feel (and they make you feel that way by.. you know.. literally saying it) like you shouldn't waste their time posting at all because your images aren't nearly as good as theirs, and this is, evidently, not a place for newbies.

BUT, those few are outweighed by the great many who genuinely want to see folks do better, and encourage and teach and lead the rest of us to improve our hobby (or profession in the case of some), and for those I am appreciative very greatly! When it comes to posting other peoples facebook pages, rules or not, I really hope people might reconsider that. By posting links to someone elses work you intend to mock there is no room for the 'second group' to do anything. What can you possibly teach if the student isn't in the room? Instead, it's fodder for the first group, which makes TPF a less pleasant place to us mere mortals. I really think anything that encourages TPF to head down a road of attacking for the sake of attacking, or belittling or degrading other people, is the wrong road to be on! Should it be a rule? I dunno, I don't think it needs to be, I think and hope that people would realize it's not helping anyone here and it's probably not the right thing to do.

I'll undoubtedly get flamed for my comments, but I will quickly point out two things. One, I'm not talking about negative C&C. I'm not talking about people who post constructive criticism and then get flamed with "But that's how I wanted it" excuses. I'm referring to folks who will offer nothing constructive, just a belittling comment or hateful remark. These are a very few and small minority, but they are not helpful and those kinds of threads only encourage that behavior. Secondly, I totally get the 'taking money' thing. But believe it or not, not every "Cliche-word Photography" facebooker is taking money. I know of several in my own circles that have never accepted a dime, they just gave themselves a name and exhibit their "art" on this seperate page. Whatever, more power to them! That may or may not be the case of others, but I think the benefit of the doubt should be given.

 

[Derrel]

TPF Staff
The TPF staff includes the site owners, administrators, moderators, and editors. The entire TPF staff:

* reserves the right to edit, move, or delete any post with or without explanation.

*may contact you regarding your signature size, a post's content, etc., and any such requests for change are expected to be complied with.

*We do not condone the sharing of illegally acquired software, nor do we tolerate discussions regarding the distribution of same. Such posts will be removed or edited.

* TPF staff cannot and do not review every single post, nor are we responsible for the content of any posted message. However, we reserve the right to edit, move, or delete any message whatsoever, which may be done with or without explanation.

*TPF Staff also reserve the right to move, with or without explanation, any message that appears to be posted in the wrong forum. Although every effort is made to contact the poster when this is done, this is not always possible.

These rules will be updated as often as needed, and this list may not include recent rules that are in effect but remain not added. Although we will make every effort to keep you informed, we reserve the right to modify

 

[Derrel]

We do not need any more "rules". TPF already has AMPLE measures to handle basically ANY issue. I trust the good judgement of the MODERATORS, over a stupid, inflexible "rule".

 

[Overread]

Guys we are not suddenly going to become over burdened with rules that restrict you to just saying "nice shot" even though some of you like to blow issues like this into such silly areas.

We won't go extreme, but at the same time we need measures in place so that we can expect the site to function, as much on its own, without us actually needing to wade in. Yeah when these threads go toxic we've already ample reasons to step in and deal with them. But the thing is its unfair to expect us to have to deal with something that is becoming more common month by month. This subject won't go away and its foolish for us to operate on a reactionary basis only - because most of the time damage will be done before we can step in to prevent it.

I suspect our greatest measure would be to place a ban upon such actions similar to how there is a ban on Canon VS Nikon and Film VS digital arguments. Before you get bent out of shape please take a moment to consider that we have discussions on those topics that we don't lock - in fact most of those rules were short term concepts brought in when such discussions were a heated and troublesome affair. Nowadays we generally don't need to ever step into those threads - this issue is most likely something along similar lines.

Remember at present nothing has been decided and we do take into account your views. Air them, but lets please try and remain calm and sane about this and not get drawn into making extreme examples and pulling the discussion apart by going too far into those extremes as otherwise we lose the ability to discuss what is actually likely to happen.

 

[Derrel]

Bad cases make bad law. The last thing we need is an over-arching rule based on the case of a couple of 19-year-old girls who graduated from the same high school in Oklahoma, and are having a little drama-feud... I have no (well,I do actually have some idea) idea how unpopular came to want to white-knight this issue, based on this one case...

 

[unpopular]

Actually. This is the second case which I've seen, and I am sure there were others. I didn't speak up then, because it wasn't an issue. Having seen it happen again, I'm starting to think it is an issue after all. In both cases, people have felt attacked, humiliated and quite likely discouraged. I would also if my photographs were being used as explicit examples of fauxtography.

So, why don't you go take your geritol, slob on some foot lotion and go to sleep now.

(you know I love ya man, but srsly...)

 

[sm4him]

My opinion is that anyone who seriously cries because of what a bunch of Internet whoevers say on a generic forum probably needs more intimate real life connections.

Agreed, BUT: Let's remember that the original OP and the original...err..."person who does photo shoots for money but is not a Pro"..knew each other. I suspect it was more knowing that someone she KNEW had set into motion what seemed to HER like a "smear campaign" had a lot more to do with her emotional response than the actual critique.
But yeah...anyone who lets YOU yahoos make 'em cry...you gotta wonder... :lmao:

I've pretty much tried to stay out of this whole discussion, but I do have to say that for me, making a "rule" about this is like the "zero tolerance" policy in our schools today--or the "zero common sense" policy, as I call it. It has the INTENT of good, but it fails miserably because it takes away the ability to consider each case on an individual basis.

As Derrel has pointed out above, the mods already HAVE the ability to do anything necessary to control threads like the most recent one, that frankly should have never happened--but unfortunately, the mods can't be everywhere on the forum all the time, and they certainly can't force anyone to use a little common sense before they start a thread.

If a thread with a link to someone else's work starts to become questionable, the mods can close it, remove the link, make the thread disappear entirely, ban the OP...whatever they feel they need to do, IN THAT INSTANCE. And that seems like a far better way to do it than setting forth "rules" that, as has been pointed out by many others in this thread, would be open to so much interpretation that they'd be useless anyway.

 

[The_Traveler]

Now I'm sorry I didn't see the original thread.

 

[12sndsgood]

I must have missed it blow up as well. Here's my opinion. if you don't like it. ignore it and move on. be above it. you don't have to post. if you think its childish, see who posted and just consider them childish and move on. if you put something on the internet, assume everyone will see it and comment on it how they feel. people need to get a thicker skin about these things. Would I ever something like this? no, I think its kind of petty to call someone out on another forum like that. but at the same time I don't feel the need to lock posts or ban someone because they choose to take the low road.