Skieur's brutally honest critiques

[skieur]

I didn't answer because I wasn't here to answer - check the profile and the last login/action time thingy (surprisingly I do have days off from my volunteer modding ).

One simple question: Irrespective of excuses, is swearing at a critique giver or for that matter any member, acceptable on this site?

Communication must be a problem, because the impression I am getting is yes, with a "good excuse".

That being the case, why would anyone give honest critiques?

skieur

 

[dakkon76]

 

[unpopular]

I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.

It's just in bad taste.

 

[kundalini]

I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.

It's just in bad taste.

There may be several philosophical areas in which I disagree with skieur, but I give credence to his abilities and expertise in offering an unbiased critique on a photo posted. You've only been here for six months and likely have not read many of his posts yet.

What is in bad taste, or rather bad judgement, was to remove the critique forums that were present before you joined TPF.

 

[unpopular]

I don't doubt that skieur is capable, it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I'd be annoyed if it were Ansel Adams who took it upon himself to offer his invaluable wisdom.

If Adams or Skieur were invited to give a critique session, or if someone started a critique thread that invited everyone to participate that would be one thing, but to just start one up on your own behalf seems a bit arrogant.

 

[kundalini]

I don't doubt that skieur is capable, it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I'd be annoyed if it were Ansel Adams who took it upon himself to offer his invaluable wisdom.

If Adams or Skieur were invited to give a critique session, or if someone started a critique thread that invited everyone to participate that would be one thing, but to just start one up on your own behalf seems a bit arrogant.

I suggest you take it up with Overread then. skieur did not start this thread.

 

[camz]

Yep it's the mods that diverted these sub threads from Mark's original thread. Got nothing to do with skieur. skieur's just a loud voice that's all lol: Offcourse there's more to skieur then just that)

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.

It's just in bad taste.

I voiced similar sentiments in the original thread, as had others, and all that was removed, put in a seperate thread and locked. :thumbup:

 

[unpopular]

lol.

Looks like we can agree on something after all.

 

[Derrel]

I am not sure if where overread hails from that the American military term "cluster-phuk" is translatable to the vernacular of his corner of the U.K. But, seriously, this entire "brutal, honest critique" thing has turned into a giant "cluster-phuk". I am not blaming Overread for the end result, even though he might have started the moderating action, there WAS a specific, publicly-stated request by Markw for other forum members NOT to offer their opinions in his thread. Anyway...instead of just letting the thread die a natural death, Overrread plowed ahead,and took much time and effort to disentangle and re-construct multiple threads, in an effort to satisfy multiple masters....and he created Frankenthreads!!

 

[unpopular]

Yes, but in America we spell it differently

 

[camz]

Derrel, that's about the funniest thing I've heard you say!

 

[memento]

over all it seems to be composed fairly well.
not sure about the exposure.. seems a little noisy.

 

[sm4him]

...there WAS a specific, publicly-stated request by Markw for other forum members NOT to offer their opinions in his thread...

Yes, but that's kinda what I don't really GET about these "my critiques and ONLY my critiques" threads...well, it's ONE part of what I don't get, anyway. I get that it was the thread that Markw started, so that rather than post your photo for everyone who wanted to C&C them, you could instead post them in HIS thread, for only MarkW to C&C...let's ignore the fact that I don't really get why you'd want to do that. Even if I highly value his C&C (and honestly, I have no opinion on that...haven't read enough of them to know), wouldn't you want to post your photo ONCE for lots of people to C&C??

But, anyway....so, MarkW starts a thread, inviting folks to submit photos for him to C&C...then someone else, shockingly, disagrees with Markw's assessment and offers an alternate C&C on the same thread, and he requests for that to not happen anymore. Now, here's the second part of what I don't get...since when does the OP get to run strict controls on how "their" thread is to work, and what sorts of replies are acceptable for their thread? Isn't it *reasonable* to assume, in a PUBLIC forum, that the PUBLIC has the right to reply to your posts? So, the OP could C&C other's photos all he wants, I just don't really get why he gets to keep other people from disagreeing and offering alternate C&C on the PUBLIC forum thread that he started...

But, that's just me...

All I know is, if I want a photo C&C'ed, I believe I'll just start my thread requesting such...

 

[dots]

??? Switched channels for some BHC..and i find a load of yakkin. Is this Crossfire? My TV guide says this should be SBHC (?)..