Community Moderators

Detail Man wrote:

It makes sense to me to base discussions on clearly demonstrable facts, bearing in mind reasonable possiblities. The more arguments become premised on what are merely assumptions, the more misplaced and potentially based upon tedious logic and reasoning they can become.

.

(1) DPReview is a successful business that appears to do very well where it comes to income from on-site advertising. If that were not the case, do you think that Amazon.com would continue to own them ? DPReview presently reports employing no less than 14 paid staff members.

See: http://www.dpreview.com/misc/about

There is not an absolute necessity that moderation be performed on a 24-hour basis. If it is effective moderation, it could be performed daily during a single 8-hour shift. Two full-time staff members to cover alternate days of the week would (in my opinion) quite likely suffice.

These people would not be pouring their time and energy into being forum readers and participating forum "posting personalities". Their job would solely be to investigate DPReview member complaints fairly, impartially, and efficiently.

These people would note complaints filed, read the complained about post, determine an action (if any), and note any administrative action taken to the DPReview computer system, which would then automatically provide written notice the DPReview member(s) directly affected by any such administrative action via the members registered email addresss. PMs are not a durable written record. Note that only so many PMs are available to members. They disappear over time.

A coherently stated and understandable "appeal" process regarding such administrative actions could (and I believe should) exist. DPReview's Editor in Chief has already stated that he reads all "feedback" submitted. Such directly indentifiable accountability is as I believe it rightly should be in any organization. People learn from their direct experiences "feeding-back" what it really means.

.

(2) DPReview very clearly states that they take no responsibilty whatsoever, and assume no liability for, any and all statements made in any and all posts published on DPReview forums by any persons other than paid DPReview staff. Quite simply, members who are unpaid staff members can as a result do no more than serve as volunteer messengers merely delivering messages that in actuality originate from paid DPReview staff.

See: We do not assume or have any responsibility or any liability for the readers' comments or opinions, nor do we claim ownership or copyright that belongs to the original poster.

From: http://www.dpreview.com/misc/termsandconditions

Given that situation (as DPReview has chosen to make it), "apples" simply cannot be "oranges" ...

.

(3) It makes very good common sense (to me) to not make the mistake of confusing what are in reality private, controlled, and censored communications environments with what are open and egalitarian communication environments. They are two very, very different things. For instance, when one reads threads such as this, the typical reader has absolutely no idea how or why they have been selectively censored (in effect, in essence) by paid DPReview staff.

As a result, there exists no assurance whatsoever that what has been allowed to remain - and has not been censored - is at all representative of what the membership thinks and believes. The very act of speaking publicly in any way about the existence of censorship, or of any consequences of that censorship which have removed participants from the conversation, is strictly forbidden ...

Participants who are willing to conveniently overlook the meaning and the implications of that situation may do so at peril of their own clarity of perceptions - as "apples" simply cannot be "oranges".

.

For instance: This post itself may be deleted, removing my published thoughts from this thread's interesting conversation entirely. There is nothing whatsoever in this post that could be construed to in any conceivable way violate any of DPReview's stated Forum Rules found at:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum-rules

However, the content of this post, in stating information, might perhaps be considered by paid DPReview staff as in their minds representing what is simply an undesirable addition to this conversation that they might prefer readers not see. If this post disappears, there will be no speech surrounding it's removal allowed whatsoever.

Therefore, the perceptions and statements which are allowed to remain on the record surrounding this discussion cannot reasonably be assumed to be truly representative of member opinions.

.

I quote some words stated by a well known thinker below. Whether or not those words may or may not considered by readers and members to be relevant to, and descriptive of, this foral communication environment is entirely up to DPReview management.

The choice is actually theirs, and is quite clearly - in my opinion, given the present communication environment as structured, and by any stretch of human imagination - not ours.

Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war. We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

But the thing that I saw in your face no power can disinherit: No bomb that ever burst shatters the crystal spirit.

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. I sometimes think that the price of liberty is not so much eternal vigilance as eternal dirt.

-George Orwell