Thoughts on being banned

I have seen several folks in several forums banned. Oft times they were very popular members of a forum, in part due to their strong opinions on equiptment related to the forum.

While Phil sometimes does ban folks on the spot with no warning this is not typical. I saw Daniella banned, and a very popular guy named Billy banned in the Panny forum. Both folks posted in forums with much larger participation than the Sigma forum has. And both of these folks had much more support to be reinstated than LM could probably get, simply due to the number of folks posting in Canon or Panny forums.

But one thing I am sure of is that Phil bends over backwards to try and NOT ban peeps. He normally emails them and asks them to cool it. And he will do it more than once if he thinks it will allow him not to ban someone.

The plain fact of the matter is sometimes LM can be a PITA. He has ticked me off on more than one occasion. I ask some rather straight foreward questions and he acted like a jerk in answering them. Sandy stepped in and sorta straightened things out, while I just ignored the matter.

LM can also be a great asset. But he probably was not banned because of what he posted, but because of how he responded to Phils emails to cool it.

I am all in favor of his reinstatement. But he needs to realize that if you have been banned a short time ago you are sorta on probation and may well be banned again, so you need to kinda walk on egg shells.

I'd suggest that Phil, or someone appointed by him as a forums monitor, post a response immediately after the offending post, telling everyone what was offensive about it. Gentle public warnings can work wonders.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

Chuck Lantz said:

I'd suggest that Phil, or someone appointed by him as a forums
monitor, post a response immediately after the offending post,
telling everyone what was offensive about it. Gentle public
warnings can work wonders.

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck

Without taking stance regarding Laurence banning, will not the approach you suggest just spur endless discussions discussing Phils/others reasons to intervene? With so many people on the forums? I think it is fair for the fourm owner to decide upon this, after all it is quite clearly spelled out how to behave when you write a post.

Oh, by the way, I love your byline:

Chuck Lantz said:

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not
close enough'

Click to expand...

http://www.ChuckLantz.com

--
Kind regards
Øyvind Strøm
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking

Chuck Lantz said:

I'd suggest that Phil, or someone appointed by him as a forums
monitor, post a response immediately after the offending post,
telling everyone what was offensive about it. Gentle public
warnings can work wonders.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind what Phil/dpreviews purpose is. Phil makes money by the number of clicks at the web site. Some forums like the Canon/Nikon forum generate lots of clicks, but the plain fact of the matter is that the P&S forums probably generate more clicks than any other forum. For better or worse the Sigma forum does not generate a lot of clicks compared to other forums.

So when there is a problem in a forum that does not generate a lot of clicks by a poster who was banned a short while back and who will not (as they use to tell me in the army) "get with the program" you dont need to a university degree to figure out what is going to happen.

And just as an aside I frequent another web site

http://www.cloudynights.com/

that has the forum moderator system you suggest. There are always lots of complaints about the moderators being **** like. Not to say it cant work, but it is not problem free.

But given the relatively few folks that are banned and the advantages of a free exchange of ideas I am for less moderation, not more moderation. And as Phil does just ban the trouble makers. Unfortunately IMHO LM is not really a trouble maker, but in this case he acted like one.

Tom Rowland said:

I have seen several folks in several forums banned. Oft times they
were very popular members of a forum, in part due to their strong
opinions on equiptment related to the forum.

While Phil sometimes does ban folks on the spot with no warning
this is not typical. I saw Daniella banned, and a very popular guy
named Billy banned in the Panny forum. Both folks posted in forums
with much larger participation than the Sigma forum has. And both
of these folks had much more support to be reinstated than LM could
probably get, simply due to the number of folks posting in Canon or
Panny forums.

But one thing I am sure of is that Phil bends over backwards to try
and NOT ban peeps. He normally emails them and asks them to cool
it. And he will do it more than once if he thinks it will allow
him not to ban someone.

The plain fact of the matter is sometimes LM can be a PITA. He has
ticked me off on more than one occasion. I ask some rather
straight foreward questions and he acted like a jerk in answering
them. Sandy stepped in and sorta straightened things out, while I
just ignored the matter.

LM can also be a great asset. But he probably was not banned
because of what he posted, but because of how he responded to Phils
emails to cool it.

I am all in favor of his reinstatement. But he needs to realize
that if you have been banned a short time ago you are sorta on
probation and may well be banned again, so you need to kinda walk
on egg shells.

Click to expand...

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems. If people come to this forum curious about Sigma/foveon technology they may ask questions you find annoying, or have deep misconceptions. The answer is not to immediately shout 'Troll!' and jump on them like a ton of bricks with abuse. The truth is that Sigma is making some bold claims about the SD14 and people from other camps are interested... and possibly dismissive, but it's not worth allowing this forum to degenerate into a flame war because of it. If people come here trolling, report them; we check the reports every couple of hours.
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Simon Joinson said:

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other
poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a
perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a
day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems.

Click to expand...

Simon, thanks for your post. You wrote "had a temporary 7 day ban" Please clarify if you mean that the ban is a temporary 7 day ban after which time he will be allowed to post again?

For the record, I wrote in support of LM being reinstated, and I hope that is what you are writing in the paragraph above.
Thanks in advance, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyflesichmann

SandyF said:

Simon Joinson said:

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other
poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a
perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a
day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems.

Click to expand...

Simon, thanks for your post. You wrote "had a temporary 7 day ban"
Please clarify if you mean that the ban is a temporary 7 day ban
after which time he will be allowed to post again?
For the record, I wrote in support of LM being reinstated, and I
hope that is what you are writing in the paragraph above.
Thanks in advance, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyflesichmann

Click to expand...

Yes it means he will automatically be reinstated
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

That takes a lot of concern out of the situation.

Appreciate your clear communication, and as I am sure a lot of us wrote you on Laurence's behalf, will hope you weren't feeling inundated by message.

Regards,
Clive

Simon Joinson said:

SandyF said:

Simon Joinson said:

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other
poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a
perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a
day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems.

Click to expand...

Simon, thanks for your post. You wrote "had a temporary 7 day ban"
Please clarify if you mean that the ban is a temporary 7 day ban
after which time he will be allowed to post again?
For the record, I wrote in support of LM being reinstated, and I
hope that is what you are writing in the paragraph above.
Thanks in advance, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyflesichmann

Click to expand...

Yes it means he will automatically be reinstated
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

Hi Sandy,

SandyF said:

Simon Joinson said:

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other
poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a
perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a
day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems.

Click to expand...

Simon, thanks for your post. You wrote "had a temporary 7 day ban"
Please clarify if you mean that the ban is a temporary 7 day ban
after which time he will be allowed to post again?
For the record, I wrote in support of LM being reinstated, and I
hope that is what you are writing in the paragraph above.
Thanks in advance, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyflesichmann

Click to expand...

Hi Sandy,

I have cut and pasted Simons complete post because IMHO you snipped out a very important part of it

cut and paste*

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems. If people come to this forum curious about Sigma/foveon technology they may ask questions you find annoying, or have deep misconceptions. The answer is not to immediately shout 'Troll!' and jump on them like a ton of bricks with abuse. The truth is that Sigma is making some bold claims about the SD14 and people from other camps are interested... and possibly dismissive, but it's not worth allowing this forum to degenerate into a flame war because of it. If people come here trolling, report them; we check the reports every couple of hours.
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

end cut and paste*

To me this is a very important part of Simons post

"If people come to this forum curious about Sigma/foveon technology they may ask questions you find annoying, or have deep misconceptions. The answer is not to immediately shout 'Troll!' and jump on them like a ton of bricks with abuse. The truth is that Sigma is making some bold claims about the SD14 and people from other camps are interested... and possibly dismissive, but it's not worth allowing this forum to degenerate into a flame war because of it. If people come here trolling, report them; we check the reports every couple of hours."

Sigma is making some very bold claims, and folks from other forums are interested, and possibly dismissive. IMHO the best way to deal with these issues is to post images. You would be suprised how many times I have simply posted a link to images in my macro gallery and shut peeps up in a hurry. I have also posted links to Thomas Mottls pano in a bottle image. Anyone who knows anything about panos cant fail to be impressed. Same thing for Sengs flowers. Her ability to capture the beauty of flowers is masterful.

I suspect this is what Simon was trying to get at. If a troll ignores valid issues in a discussion and is reported for it he will be banned. If the troll is simply met with silly flames the ban may be extended to more than the trolls.

And I would point out that Steve and I were/are still on good terms because he seems to agree with me that for macros my SD10/150mm/1.4TC macros are better than the macros Canon bodies/anylens combo can produce. I have posted many times I would like a link to full size bayer sensor macros to compare with my full size Sigma macros. I have also posted my tests using my Canon 1d2/150 to capture macros compared to the Sigma macros. I have asked others to post other relavent images.

But never did I resort to flaming or name calling in these posts. And I suggest this is what Simon wants us to do. Maybe there is another difference with my posting too.

I dont care which camera I use to produce which image. I have Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Kodak, and Olympus bodies. And I use them all for specific purposes. And for some things they are definitely superior to my SD10. But for some things the SD10 captures better images.

Another thing I try and do is preface all my posts with the greeting "hi OP" so the OP is at least once greeted by name. There have been several studies that confirm the most pleasing word in any language is the name of the person hearing that word. So simply addressing a person by their name may take some of the edge off any post.

Hi Tom, I didn't (and don't) want to get into "he said" "he replied" and who posted what and what I thought about their posts. Again, I'd followed the whole discussion at question quite carefully and read it all. But I will say I regard LM as a primary, positive, contributor to this forum. I do my best to help new visitors to the Sigma forum with links, photos, basic questions-answers, etc. and how-to start their research into viewing images. Laurence helped me thus when I was new to my Sigma SD10 and thereafter. I do of course hope we all have a helpful outlook and greeting, I agree, for newcomers.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

My parents taught me , if you don't have something positve to say , don't say anything at all. I regretfully don't always follow that rule myself but if L didn't always start off his diatribe in a negative tone he might get more milage out of his knowledge . Many times on the sigma forum , one must defend oneselves first before getting any useful info. It's got obvious roots . Sigmas' an underdog - users should get over it . Conversion never comes from agressive defense of controversial position. That said , there are some members , like Sandy , who are an asset to the forum , but who could probably contribute more information , if they didn't have to constantly come to the defense of some of the other regular members so often. At times , responses have almost religious undertones exhibiting the same closemindedness. I've never seen a photo I liked , where I asked what kind of camera it was made with. I cruise around on alot of dpr forums , canons , panasonic , even casio. I rarely see the level of hostility as seen here. Three or four years ago , when I was thinking of getting the sd9 , I spent alot of time here . It wasn't like that then. There was an air of optomism about foveon. I guess since sigma didn't conquer the world , some users turned sour . It is , after alls' said and done , only a camera. I can't imagine seeing this kind of behavior over printers , and I think they're just as important. But vote me on the side of lifting the ban - sticks and stones will break my bones , but words .... well , freedom of speech is what the world needs more of , not less.

http://www.kurthbousman.com

SandyF said:

Hi Tom, I didn't (and don't) want to get into "he said" "he
replied" and who posted what and what I thought about their posts.
Again, I'd followed the whole discussion at question quite
carefully and read it all. But I will say I regard LM as a primary,
positive, contributor to this forum. I do my best to help new
visitors to the Sigma forum with links, photos, basic
questions-answers, etc. and how-to start their research into
viewing images. Laurence helped me thus when I was new to my Sigma
SD10 and thereafter. I do of course hope we all have a helpful
outlook and greeting, I agree, for newcomers.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann

Click to expand...

Hi Sandy,

Here is a link to the thread that resulted in me starting to ignore LM as much as possible.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=21274374

IMHO he would have been better off not posting anything than posting what he posted. The first post was a compliment to me for posting a link to a good compairson of TCs. LM simply degraded the signal by adding noise. And this is not the only time he has done this.

He reminds me of another poster named Daniella. She has been banned multiple times for her abusive posts. Yet she has lots of fans because she is a first rate photographer who at times can be very helpful. This is how I view LM. Like the girl in this poem

There was a little girl, who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good she was very very good, and when she was bad she was horrid.

--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston

. . . my thoughts are with him.

but this one sounds like a pup.

Here's a thread one can appreciate on it. Especially the rolled newspaper.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=20303851

Schnauzer said:

. . . my thoughts are with him.

Click to expand...

yvind Strm said:

Chuck Lantz said:

I'd suggest that Phil, or someone appointed by him as a forums
monitor, post a response immediately after the offending post,
telling everyone what was offensive about it. Gentle public
warnings can work wonders.

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck
Without taking stance regarding Laurence banning, will not the
approach you suggest just spur endless discussions discussing
Phils/others reasons to intervene? With so many people on the
forums? I think it is fair for the fourm owner to decide upon this,
after all it is quite clearly spelled out how to behave when you
write a post.

Oh, by the way, I love your byline:

yvind Strm said:

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not
close enough'

Click to expand...

http://www.ChuckLantz.com

--
Kind regards
Øyvind Strøm
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking

Click to expand...

Øyvind:

The people who trained me when I first got into the forums biz were very big on open discussion whenever there was a problem. If done correctly, just about any situation can be handled efficiently and without ruffling too many feathers.

The key is to run the forums as you would run a large house party. The word "host" comes into play here in an important way. You need to be able to handle a drunk uncle and a prim and proper grandmother who happen to be seated next to each other at your "party", without offending either of them, and without driving the other guests away. It's tricky, but it can be done.

And you always have to keep in mind that some of those "guests" may be the advertisers (and potential advertisers) who are paying the bills.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

...hmmm. This is worse than I thought.

Ambiguous comments are just that; ...ambiguous.

Or:

If the comment isn't 100% clear to the reader(s), then the comment is less than 100% clear, ...period.

Or:

When in doubt, let it slide.

(PS: Who do I invoice for these hard-won gems of wisdom?)

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

Hi Chuck,

Well, I'll pay partly -- as I have .

Listen, you're a pretty spirited person yourself, Chuck, what with all the boating, sports photography, and activities between, and comments here.

Then you know spirited people are often fun, and always also a bit difficult at times. I suspect it's the thing most of us here enjoy, that there are all these interests because of the interesting people here.

Maybe it's because of this that we also attract those who can show they may be a bit frustrated, and express this in various ways, not all of them even destructive.

As some have said, I've most often been interested in how we can get the best balances, a very useful and proper grouding of peacefulness to all this, by way of fairness. Yes, with my faults, more of which later.

Then you also have the question: what about those who subtly or otherwise prefer at times to bring bad feeling? Simon has a point that not all those with misconceptions intend this, but some sometimes do - as adults we ought to recognise it.

In this case, Schnauzer is certainly not our biggest problem, but has made a specialty of ambiguous remarks, and has made clear before that he does it with intent, and some enjoyment of what he may feel is 'clever edginess', though there I would disagree. His two subjects seem to be Laurence's moments of being impatient, and Schauzer's own allergy to the cultural broadness and supportiveness to the Sigma effort which many veterans offer here, which he mistakes as blindness or religious following.

Well, a richer world is, I suspect we all agree, a more complex one. That's how we treat Sigma, for all its various elements, and that's how I think we'd all like to treat each other.

Then my idea is that we do it best by recognising openly when someone is up to something -- something clever, or something not so nice.

The idea is that many times offenders seem to think people aren't up to their cleverness. This as you will be sure to know is often the attitude of growing children when they think the care and thoughtfulness of their elders is something different from experience and actual depths.

Again, that there are depths, and that we are not a bunch of too-smiley good-sayers, is a great strength and attraction here.

I am very sure I myself don't always make replies perfectly, and I try to discover and improve. I would have to say that it feels most of the mistakes occur when someone has begun to be sharp and rude to someone else.

There are always mixtures in messages, and I think all of us have been pleased to develop conversations of good pleasure with persons who have perhaps at first seemed a bit abrasive.

If we are honest about seeing through subterfuges, as well as aggressive attitudes that cover over better possibilities, it seems we are then giving better actual conversation to each other.

It's that possibility which feels to hold so much promise here, and I think some of the veterans really feel sure how they have it.

With regards,
Clive

Chuck Lantz said:

...hmmm. This is worse than I thought.

Ambiguous comments are just that; ...ambiguous.

Or:

If the comment isn't 100% clear to the reader(s), then the comment
is less than 100% clear, ...period.

Or:

When in doubt, let it slide.

(PS: Who do I invoice for these hard-won gems of wisdom?)

--
'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not
close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

Click to expand...

Tom Rowland wrote:
...

Tom Rowland said:

Tom Rowland said:

But one thing I am sure of is that Phil bends over backwards to try

Click to expand...

and NOT ban peeps. He normally emails them and asks them to cool
it. And he will do it more than once if he thinks it will allow
him not to ban someone.

Click to expand...

Well, Tom, you're wrong here. Unless Phil has changed his policy recently I know of no one who has received a warning before being banned.

I will give him credit though where credit is due. I wrote a rather scathing post one time directed to him. Much to his credit he accepted it, responded curtly and did not ban me.

Cliff.

--
http://www.pbase.com/cjmax/galleries

'May the best you've ever seen
Be the worst you'll ever see...'
from A Scots Toast by Allan Ramsay

CJMax said:

CJMax said:

CJMax said:

But one thing I am sure of is that Phil bends over backwards to try

Click to expand...

and NOT ban peeps. He normally emails them and asks them to cool
it. And he will do it more than once if he thinks it will allow
him not to ban someone.

Click to expand...

Well, Tom, you're wrong here. Unless Phil has changed his policy
recently I know of no one who has received a warning before being
banned.

Click to expand...

Hi Cliff,

I am not sure what you consider a warning but if you check out this link you will see Phil issued what he called a yellow card

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=13154034&q=billy+ban&qf=m

Billy was widely regaurded as the crazy uncle at the Christmas party. Some folks liked him, some did not, but he did lots of stuff that was crazy and that is what got him banned.

After Phil emailed him asking him to stop. At one time he had 10-15 posts in the panny formum, all of what at best could be described as rather mediocre images. Even when Phil asked him to at least post all his images in one post instead of multiple posts he refused.

And while there was not the public discussion in her case my understanding is Daniella has been asked to, in Phils terms, cool it.

CJMax said:

I will give him credit though where credit is due. I wrote a
rather scathing post one time directed to him. Much to his credit
he accepted it, responded curtly and did not ban me.

Click to expand...

What lots of folks dont seem to understand is that the Sigma forum is a blip on Phils radar screen. Check out the number of posts in the Canon SLR Lens Talk forum or the Panny P&S forum. There are many more posts there than in the Sigma forum. And those posts generate lots more emails with gripes that Phil gets.

There were probably three 150 post threads about Billy being banned. Daniella was/still is a very popular/disliked poster in various forums. Both generate much more gripe emails than LM ever did.

And please dont take this wrong, but your email to Phil (read Phil or one of his moderators) was probably like water on a ducks back. I have seen very insulting posts in the Canon 1d/5d forum about why it should be split, and how Phil does not know what he is doing for not spliting the 5d out of the Canon pro body forum. There are probably 50 guys who have emailed him on this topic, in terms much worse than anything you said.

I also suggest everyone reread Simons reply to my original post

**************************************************

The poster in question had a temporary 7 day ban as did the other poster with whom he engaged in constant bickering. It's not a perfect system but with 2 part time moderators and 10,000 posts a day it's the only way we can deal with persistant problems. If people come to this forum curious about Sigma/foveon technology they may ask questions you find annoying, or have deep misconceptions. The answer is not to immediately shout 'Troll!' and jump on them like a ton of bricks with abuse. The truth is that Sigma is making some bold claims about the SD14 and people from other camps are interested... and possibly dismissive, but it's not worth allowing this forum to degenerate into a flame war because of it. If people come here trolling, report them; we check the reports every couple of hours.
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

******************************************

Especially look at his comment that Sigma is making some bold claims. What attracted to me to the sd10 in the first place was the IQ. And for some applications it produces great IQ. But there are also short commings. AF, burst rate, TTL, general reliability, mirror slap, and several other issues dont seem to be anywhere close to the newer cameras. Not to mention the delay in introducing the sd14.

Unfortunately the attitude of some folks posting here is to ignore these issues and immediately scream troll when any of these issues are brought up. I am sure LM generated lots of abuse reports for his boilerplate resposes that someones problem was not due to a Sigma lens on a non Sigma body, but due to the sensor not being a Foveon.

Many of those posts were not trolls, but legit questions about Sigma lens. And both he and Dom have been very dismissive of me when I asked very legitmate questions.

The plain fact of the matter is Sigma DSLRs are very poor performers for action photography. You simply can not capture BIF, lots of sports action, or even indoor shots of kids running around. When I asked about BIF I was told I need to shoot in better light. Any serious wildlife photographer would laugh at this suggestion.

And even with the reliability problems my sd10 has I use it a lot. For certain types of imaging I do it is the best tool for the job.

But Sigmas are special purpose cameras. And they are not well suited for lots of photographers. Dismissiong folks who point this out, or ask how well a Sigma would fit their needs (when their question clearly indicates it would not be the best camera for them) is a diservice not only to the, but also the the reputation of the Sigma forum.