Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ignorance  (Read 40683 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8067



WWW
« on: September 03, 2010, 10:03:16 PM »
ReplyReply

A quick Sat morning rant while listening to a Depeche Mode SACD a bit too loud for my neighbours' liking.

Some of us like to ignore posts from some users. It struck me today that I had never made a connection between the "ignore user" and the word "ignorance", although the 2 words obviously share the same latin origin (ignorare - to not know derived from the noum ignarus - unaware).

Looking elsewhere is sometimes convenient and why would be forced to consider things we think we are not interested in? At the same time, how can we be sure that ignoring content isn't going to deprive us from an opportunity to become a bit less ignorant?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2010, 03:10:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps because we reach a stage that switching someone to 'ignore' has already told us that enough is enough?

I haven't switched anyone off - yet - because I have this feeling that perhaps the temptation arises not so much because of what a person says as the manner in which he says it, and that can be a problem associated with the internet: no facial message comes over, and that, coupled with less than perfect use of language (we are international) can create an entirely wrong impression. My wife never wanted to use the computer. She used to tell me that two words on the telephone were enough to advise her of any problems, undercurrents or anything else that might be going on with the family, that the voices told their story and not the words. She was right. She always was.

But having said all that, it is true that some posts are simply scanned and discarded, particularly where the use of those blasted, stupid little yellow faces is concerned; use words, please.

Where is Ray? Has he gone off to Tibet or did he stroke the beard of the tiger at the wrong time?

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2010, 05:01:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I only ignore users who are themselves ignorant and uncivil, and rarely, if ever, contribute anything worthwhile to the discussions. Fortunately having most of the people use their own names cuts down on the rudeness part, but there's still one person who I have on ignore in the new software.

It's different than in real life where I can tell people to STFU. Online it just makes things worse. So ignoring people online is the second best thing; it's like walking away from boring people.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4025



« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2010, 06:35:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I only ignore users who are themselves ignorant and uncivil, and rarely, if ever, contribute anything worthwhile to the discussions. Fortunately having most of the people use their own names cuts down on the rudeness part, but there's still one person who I have on ignore in the new software.
I've some sympathy with that view. The problem is that someone may contribute nothing to some discussions (or indeed less than nothing, sucking the life out of the topic or sidetracking it) while still being able to make a valuable contribution to others, perhaps by posting interesting images. So I've never set anyone to "ignore". It's easy enough simply not to read an individual's posts.

Jeremy
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2010, 07:36:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes even people we don't like or who don't behave like we accept have a point.
I think I'd only set someone to ignore who would also get banned from this forum for rude behavior.
So I can leave it up to the moderators.
Posts I find annoying I simply overlook with my wetware spam filter.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6290



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2010, 10:11:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Jeremy has the right approach. Christoph has a point too, though the kind of rude behavior that might get someone banned usually results when the poster, at least unconsciously, recognizes his ignorance of a subject to which he has an emotional reaction. The result may be ad hominem attacks: a defense that doesn't require factual information. But I agree with Jeremy that putting someone like that on ignore may be a mistake. When the perp calms down and gets to a subject he understands, his contributions may be illuminating. We had a classic example of this kind of thing on this very branch of the forum not long ago.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:58:10 AM by RSL » Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7987



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2010, 11:35:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I've come around to Jeremy's view, too.

On the old board there were a couple of posters that I set to ignore, but then I found myself often clicking the "Do you want to read this post?" button just to see if the offender had said something meaningful, and often that was the case. So now I just shake my head at posts I don't like and get on with my life.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2010, 12:12:49 PM »
ReplyReply

...So I can leave it up to the moderators...

To reply to the original question/remark, I do not ignore anyone, as a matter of principle, for reasons already mentioned by others.

Now... about moderators... am I the only one noticing a much more active policing by the moderators, coinciding with the new software? More posts are deleted, more threads locked and more threads completely removed than ever before (as far as I can tell). Two recent cases in point: about role of gear and about animal cruelty. I took part in both and did not see anything worth banning, yet they were not only quickly locked, but completely removed. In my opinion, that sucks all the fun out of the debate. I am generally inclined to take part in controversial subjects, for that is where the debate gets really interesting. As the old adage goes "when everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks".

I must admit that I find the new software much less user friendly (visually) and that I reduced the number of my visits to the site as a result. Perhaps that is why I have not noticed Mr. Schewe participation recently... was he banned under the "new world order"  Smiley (sorry, Rob)?. Not that I am in favor of him being banned, I take him as he is (i.e., as colorful as his shirts), and actually enjoy sparring with him from time to time.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1906



« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2010, 12:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure! the new software came with a very fine pair of black hob-nailed boots...
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2010, 12:55:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure! the new software came with a very fine pair of black hob-nailed boots...
Ah, yes... sarcasm as a debate-avoidance tool... brilliant! For the record, I said "coinciding with the new software" not caused by it.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2010, 12:56:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I ignore people to control my own behavior.  People rarely stay ignored for long.

Now... about moderators... am I the only one noticing a much more active policing by the moderators, coinciding with the new software? More posts are deleted, more threads locked and more threads completely removed than ever before (as far as I can tell). Two recent cases in point: about role of gear and about animal cruelty. I took part in both and did not see anything worth banning, yet they were not only quickly locked, but completely removed.

I don't care for that.

Edit: "that" being threads completely removed.  Shutting down a thread doesn't bug me.  It helps define the line of appropriate conversation for the board.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 12:58:42 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2010, 01:27:19 PM »
ReplyReply

... Shutting down a thread doesn't bug me.  It helps define the line of appropriate conversation for the board...
Fair enough. And if the majority of the board feels the same, fine. As for me personally, I am afraid that "appropriate" often means dry and boring. And I know that the "appropriate line" is too appropriate when I start missing Mr. Schewe style (there, I said it).
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535


« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2010, 01:31:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow! Only one post.










Seriously, unless it was a complete troll (who'd be set for a banning anyway), I wouldn't 'ignore' anyone; you never know when they might actually have something useful to post.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2010, 08:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes even people we don't like or who don't behave like we accept have a point.

If this was Foreign Affairs or The Economist I would agree - but there's enough noise as it is here, and the (very few) people not contributing aren't getting any better.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8067



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2010, 08:03:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your inputs Gentlemen.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4874



« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2010, 08:19:16 AM »
ReplyReply

To reply to the original question/remark, I do not ignore anyone, as a matter of principle, for reasons already mentioned by others.

Now... about moderators... am I the only one noticing a much more active policing by the moderators, coinciding with the new software? More posts are deleted, more threads locked and more threads completely removed than ever before (as far as I can tell). Two recent cases in point: about role of gear and about animal cruelty. I took part in both and did not see anything worth banning, yet they were not only quickly locked, but completely removed. In my opinion, that sucks all the fun out of the debate. I am generally inclined to take part in controversial subjects, for that is where the debate gets really interesting. As the old adage goes "when everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks".

I must admit that I find the new software much less user friendly (visually) and that I reduced the number of my visits to the site as a result. Perhaps that is why I have not noticed Mr. Schewe participation recently... was he banned under the "new world order"  Smiley (sorry, Rob)?. Not that I am in favor of him being banned, I take him as he is (i.e., as colorful as his shirts), and actually enjoy sparring with him from time to time.

Jeff is traveling in Iceland co-teaching a PODAS workshop (Phase One) and so has been off line for a couple of weeks. He'll return in fine form (I'm sure) soon enough.

As for deleting the animal cruelty thread, it was left up until the original poster went off the edge in terms of rudeness and vitriol, at which point (because I was traveling) Chris phoned me, told me what was going on, and asked what I thought. I simply said "Fuck-em. Delete the thread".

I hate censoring anyone, but I won't tolerate aggressive rudeness. My yardstick is to ask myself what I would do if the person in question was sitting across my dining room table, and said what he did. In this case, I would have simply shown him the door with my hand on the back of his collar, so that's effectively what we did.

The topic of cruelty to animals can be opened up again if anyone wishes, minus the rudeness of course.

Michael

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2010, 10:23:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael

I understand your point of view, and agree that courtesy is an obligatory, basic requirement. However, wouldn't it be a better alternative to disappear the rude poster rather than the thread? The problem with scrubbing or locking entire conversations is that something interesting might well be going on and it seems a shame to lose it due to a single idiot soiling the floor. Starting again in another thread isn't the same: one easily loses momentum and enthusiasm when things implode.

After all, if somebody is willing to offend once, then what guarantee that he won't do it again? If it's in the genes...

;-)

Rob C

 
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4874



« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2010, 11:43:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

Point well made. But I was annoyed and responded emotionally. If I'd been online at the time I would likely have acted differently.

In any event, I didn't care for the topic (or the personal insults) and so was happy to simply deep six the whole thing.

Michael
Logged
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2010, 11:55:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I am more of a lurker in this board, but a moderator on two other non photography related forums. The question of whether or not to lock a topic, delete a single post or delete the whole post can be huge problem from time to time. I have said exactly what Michael has said once or twice, "Fuck him" & remove the whole blasted thread.

But typically in the spirit of open & free communication I simply delete an offensive, slanderous or rude post, send the offensive rude poster a warning the first time. If they continue to not follow the forum guidelines or rules of basic generally accepted good manners then they get canned. Sometimes for a specified time & on occasion permanently.
 
Political & social topics can sure get people all worked up, especially in an international forum. Off topic areas of a forum are the ones that give us moderators headaches.  After all I might have a passionate opposing view as well. Some days it ain't easy....trust me


Cheers,

Warren
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 11:58:24 AM by W.T. Jones » Logged

Warren
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2010, 12:36:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The question of whether or not to lock a topic, delete a single post or delete the whole post can be huge problem from time to time. I have said exactly what Michael has said once or twice, "Fuck him" & remove the whole blasted thread.

I can’t tell you how many web forums on photography would immediately delete the above for using the “F” word and kudo’s to Michael and company for treating us like adults around here, using the censorship powers at the absolute minimum. I can’t think of any other forum that is as open to lively debate and in some cases, politically uncorrectness. I suspect its one of the main reasons this forum is as popular as it is. In the end, we are guests here so I can’t blame Michael if you come into his home with cat shit on your shoes and you are asked to leave (hurray, I used a bad word <g>)
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad