Sorry but I gotta say it

[head zoo keeper]

Yeah, I think you guys are absolutely right -- the problem at PN was that although the rules were always there, PN was not very transparent about it. I mean, how many folks, when they first signed up, read the Terms of Services? I honestly didn't know that little link at the bottom of the page was even there until Shun, I think it was, pointed it out in the Nikon forum about three months ago.

From the get-go, Craig made everything explicitly clear and as a reminder, these rules are posted on the top of every topic forum.

[nelsonfoto]

Alan, I don't know how much energy I want to put toward discussing what seems to me to be quite cut and dry. That said: My disgust with Mottershead et al was due to my being told to sit down and shut up. I paid hard currency to support their endeavor, which meant I had a vested interest in photo.net and how it was managed. I did not fork over $25 so I could be told to sit down and shut my festering gob. The use of advertising at photo.net was over the line and had nothing to do with maintaining a discussion-centered forum. I expected my protests to fall on deaf ears and I expected, ultimately, that I would be punished for speaking my mind. I was banished from the feedback forum, and have had multiple threads deleted outside of feedback forum. What's the point? I determined I could do better and DO it better.

About a month or so before launching these forums, I e-mailed a few of the guys with the idea. Response was "heck, it can't hurt to try."

So far, so good.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to make the rules; but I felt like I had an honest objection to the way some things were handled (as did a few other people) and it was pretty much brushed off.

Here... here I foot the bill. I don't mean that as a sleight, but I am paying the bills. The rules are good rules. I don't know what few means in Iowa, but in Arkansas it means 3 or more. I see three total - Your initial complaint, Kaiyen's (if you wish to add it to yours), and Rich's parting shot. We've several dozen more active participants who seem to be accepting of the policy as set forth, and a vocal group of them taking part in this very thread.

Now, if you have a suggestion, I should like to hear it. A modifcation of layout, perhaps? A new feature? But if your complaint is only that these forums are boring for lack of conflict allowed, then you're in need of new sport. We don't want it here. Seriously, this is simply not the place for it. I've always enjoyed interacting with you. I don't want you to leave, but I don't know that I can give you enough reason to stay put. And unless you have something new to add to this specific matter, I'm finished with it.

Craig

[Dean Williams]

"I just worry that the same thing will happen here that happened on Photo.net or that it will just become stagnant with the same people and little in the way of growth. Then again, maybe that's what most of the people here want (not saying that's necessarily a bad thing). "

I doubt that there are many, if any, of the "old heads" that crossed over from pnet that want our own private clubhouse here.  The place is sponsored by Craig, he built the "clubhouse", so to speak, but there's no clic here that I notice.  New folks are welcomed by many, and the greater majority of the members are very polite to them.  Everyone is welcome, and everyone gets a copy of the (few) rules of the house.  "You can voice your opinion and argue your case without making some one else feel like crap, so practice civility at every turn."

One of the problems at the other place is the attitude of some to the questions of the uninformed.  Many of those take on the same tone of the post that is the subject of this discussion.  This kind of thing is usually not well tolerated when a group of people meet in real life.  Why should it be tolerated here?

As an example, Alan, if you and I, along with half a dozen of our fellows here were sitting around a table for a chat, I think it unlikely that an honest question would be answered with a snide remark.  There may be, or probably would be, some humorous remarks or ribbing going on.  But, if you were to ask how to get the shutter going on your Signet 35, I'd tell you how to do it.  Not  "Go do your own research, there's information out there!".

If I didn't want to hear your questions/comments, I could simply stay away from the meeting.  If I was annoyed by a question that seemed to have an obvious answer (to me), I should simply keep my mouth shut.  Surly comments are worse than no answer at all.

[edthened]

The difference between P.net & Nelsonfoto is that at P.net they actively ask you to pay actual cash to use their facilities & then without warning delete posts, pictures etc.  There also seems to be a lot of petty bickering,  flaming & elitism which is really not  necessary :!:
Here at Nelsonfoto, Craig has invited us to join his group at his expense with his rules to discus without prejudice our mutual enjoyment of photography in general, which suites me down to the ground & I'm sure many other members also
If somebody comes along & doesn't like what they see here there are lots of other places they can go ( in the nicest possible way of course )
End of story :!:

Edwin    

[nelsonfoto]

I think this dog has run its hunt. I'll leave it unlocked.

[Alan Gage]

All good points and well taken. I was unaware of portfolios being deleted on Photo.net and I don't recall seeing threads pulled unless they really degenerated or were against guidelines.

I've been thinking about this alot and trying to figure out just where I stand and what's been bothering me. I think I saw Dan being suspended as an outlet for some feelings that I had. I still don't think it was the right thing to do but that's not really what this is all about for me. I think a lot of it comes from that fact that my interest have changed quite a bit and what I used to find interesting I don't really care about anymore. I have to remind myself that just because I don't find it interesting doesn't mean that others should feel the same.

I think it's good that there are clear guidelines laid out and that everyone knows about them. I guess what I don't like about them is that we aren't to take care of problems ourselves. I've never been one to "run and tell daddy" and would just as soon take care of my own problems; and I don't mean by getting into a pissing match.

I remember on Photo.net when someone would come in to the classics forum and get a little unruly a couple people would politely point out how this forum was a little different and we didn't like that behavior here. I personally feel that allowing a group to police itself up to an extent works better then a moderator disciplining the  individual.  I think that would leave less hard feelings and there would be a better chance of that person becoming a valuable member of the community.

I wasn't looking for fights and hard feelings in the forums; but sometimes a little conflict is good. I don't know really know how to explain it so I won't try. I think you might have misunderstood an earlier post when I said "As for watching endless flame wars. I've never watched one that I didn't want to watch."  All I meant was that it's easy to spot early on what's happening and if you don't want to read a post like that it's easy to just pass over it.  If you don't feed the fire it will die out.

I've always enjoyd interacting with you too Craig, and that hasn't changed. I don't plan on going anywhere and I'm sorry for blowing this a little out of proportion.

Alan

[Mike R]

First off, I like this site and I like Craig and most of what is going on here.  I don't necessarily agree with getting rid of Dan as I don't think the situation warranted it.  I was a bit offended by the way it was handled.  I understand Craig's rules and agree that, since he is paying the bills, he can make the rules, but I think that the situation was handled poorly.  It is not the fact that Dan was booted, but the way in which it was done.  It all started with previous discussions and the dislike for each other was apparent to me.  As a matter of fact, Craig just posted a reply on photo.net sniping a bit at Dan.  It is fairly obvious that you don't care for him much, but as the big dog impartiality is necessary.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EdRG&tag=

I like honest discussion.  I even like a bit of disagreement.  I am used to honest discussion and even some short tempers.  Since my family are all boxers, we ended up on the canvas with the gloves on quite a few times, but we learned something from each exchange.  At the college level, discussion is paramount to learning.  Without disagreement little is learned or retained.  There are ways to disagree, however.  Dan might have stepped out of line, but there just might be fault on both sides.  I don't necessarily like what has gone on at photo.net, especially with the Leica forum, but open discussion is good.

Again, Craig, I like what is being done here.  I like the discussions and what is shared and learned.  This is not a personal attack, but I think that every criticism has some truth behind it.   If there are three or four people that think that the situation was handled incorrectly, then maybe, if the situation arises in the future, reflection before reaction should be the course of action.  I really hope that this does not end in a, "if you don't like it, just leave," but I like the discussion and hope it continues.

Mike

[nelsonfoto]

Actually, Mike, regards your inferring my not liking Dan, you're way off base. I have stated several times that I respect (edit: and appreciate) Dan's apparent knowledge/wisdom/etc., but I have serious problems with his style. That said, there is mini-Dan in David M., a sabe-lo-todo who often pops into a thread just to throw a dart and move on. My jab in that photo.net thread was meant to show my frustration with them both, and others who take similar tack.

I am not afraid of discussing this matter, and will discuss it until the cows do merrily come home. The plain truth is that I am a borderline social retard with my anxieties and yet I work to make people feel welcome that they can and may and SHOULD ask questions here, and that includes questioning my own behavior/actions/etc. (edit: and this statement ties into what I've previously posted regarding the atmosphere some folks create with negativity that prevents or dissuades newcomers and other curious individuals from asking questions for fear of being struck down as idiots or intellectual sloths/leeches, etc.)

Note that this thread stands open to any who wish to bludgeon me a while. Tyrannical of me, yes?

As for pugilism, there are moments I wish some of us (edit: not  us here, but us as in elsewhere) could do a round or three in the ring.

[Mike R]

Craig,

Thanks for the reply.  I understand better now.  I agree that it is much easier to just go punch it out sometimes.  I  know that violence doesn't solve anything but I am 38 as well and remember the good old days when you just duked it out, helped each other up, and were better friends than before.  No knives or guns that I remember back then, or not as many.  Peace.

Mike

[Major Black]

Ah yes, the good old days when you could just beat the holy sh*t out of one another. How I miss my aching knuckles.
 :lol:

Just joking, natch. I'm a newbie and I too want to thank Craig for providing such a great forum.

Now put up yer dukes!
 :twisted: