# If we, as TPF users feel the need to make a complaint to the admin...



## e.rose (Jul 18, 2012)

...how exactly do we go about doing that?

Do the admin have profiles here that we can PM?  Is there a special form?

What's the deal with that?

Thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 18, 2012)

If you feel the need, just PM an administrator.

Click here.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 18, 2012)

Thank you, sir. :hug::


----------



## mishele (Jul 18, 2012)

You just raise your hand.......


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 18, 2012)

mishele said:


> You just raise your hand.......



That's if you have to go potty.


----------



## mishele (Jul 18, 2012)

480sparky said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You just raise your hand.......
> ...



Shoot.....and I've been sitting all night waiting for someone to let me go!!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 19, 2012)

All the mods are in the potty?


----------



## Tony S (Jul 19, 2012)

I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member...........


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 19, 2012)

Admins are the ones with red names, you see them on now and then in the listing, they can be PM'ed.

Or you can use the link sparky gave, or find them in member search, or...and my favorite...

write your complaint on a $100 bill and send it to me and I will personally see that it is handled.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 19, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> *Admins are the ones with red names*,



:scratch: Huh?
I don't think so...lots of folks have red names...like e.rose, the OP, for instance. But I'm pretty sure she's not an admin, or:
a) she wouldn't be asking how to contact the mods, and
b) we'd be in a HEAP o' trouble :lmao:

But, I *do* think the Mods have purple names, though I'm not sure that the purple is exclusive to mods.  Also, I think there's a difference between the mods and admins.

Anyway...just use sparky's link, e.rose.  Or better yet, have another glass of wine first and see if you still care...


----------



## PinkDoor (Jul 19, 2012)

Only people with blue names are cool


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 19, 2012)

Bold red names, not regular red names.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 19, 2012)

Tony S said:
			
		

> I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member........... don't complain if it's free.



I disagree! If a member (paid or unpaid) has something to say, they should be able to say it!! (Especially considering the thousands of lurkers who don't even bother to register)!  No elitist treatment here!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 19, 2012)

Sorry about typos.... iPhone!


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 19, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Sorry about typos.... iPhone!




Don't Blame The Equipment.  I got ya. LOL


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 19, 2012)

I tried to find how and how much to be a supporting member and can't seem to find this info.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I tried to find how and how much to be a supporting member and can't seem to find this info.



$25 per year.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/payments.php


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 19, 2012)

Close your eyes, take a deep breath, unclench your fists and repeat 20 times, "It's only an internet forum......."


----------



## KmH (Jul 19, 2012)

Regular member names are *burgandy*. Admin screen names are *red*.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 19, 2012)

OK, now that I'm a 
 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.



> One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to  reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or  phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in  sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code).  One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of &#8220;fair use.&#8221;  The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of  court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of  the copyright law.
> Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the  reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as  criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.  Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining  whether or not a particular use is fair.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## e.rose (Jul 19, 2012)

Tony S said:


> I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member...........



It's the things I am going to complain about that are KEEPING me from being willing to PAY $25 to BECOME a supporting member.


----------



## IByte (Jul 19, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Sorry about typos.... iPhone!



It's ok Charlie we know it's the...ugh IPhone.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 19, 2012)

Tony S said:


> I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member...........



Supporting member to whom?  Are there no adds for supporting members?  If there are no adds I might consider it.


----------



## nmoody (Jul 19, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member...........
> ...



Not "no" adds but reduced. No in thread adds and the ones up to are reduced. Removing some adds were a pleasant surprise. I mostly did it to support such a great resource.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 19, 2012)

nmoody said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Tony S said:
> ...




Exactly!  Who is the resource though?  The individuals who help you out or some folks collecting money on adds and your "support"....


----------



## PinkDoor (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congrats on becoming BLUE!  Great copyright excerpt!


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.



Start your own forum, and you can enact as many 'silly' rules as you like.


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 19, 2012)

I became a supporting member to support the forums admins who are paying for us to have such a place to share and learn.  Advertising rarely covers the whole bill.  I ran a forum for 5 years out of my own pocket for the good of my members...so I understand how every little bit helps when it comes to internet forum costs.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 19, 2012)

480sparky said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> ...



Certain things are silly when they actually impede the 'progress.'

For example, if  I would want to use another's photograph as an example of something terrific or of a technique or as just as a good representation of his style - a use not allowable under the current rule but certainly is allowable under the Fair Use Doctrine of the Copyright Law.  

The Copyright Law is made to protect the rights of the maker and the Fair Use Provision serves to encourage the intellectual and artistic progress that doesn't harm the rights of the maker.

The verbiage is clear enough.  

We currently use GIFs that are probably copyrighted by someone, yet we can't put up pictures that are disseminated for exactly the purpose of advertising without running afoul of the current rule here.

It is good that the Admins want to protect copyrights but the rules shouldn't go further than the actual copyright Law does. I suggest the Rule be loosened to correspond with the fair use doctrine.

My guess is that the burden on Mods won't change at all - and SchwettyLens can be given a reprieve for his victimless non-crime.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> ........It is good that the Admins want to protect copyrights but the rules shouldn't go further than the actual copyright Law does. ..........



Perhaps the Admin originally adopted this 'silly rule' to mitigate lawsuits.  Nothing kills the fun more than a couple lawyers sticking their grubby mitts into other people's pockets.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 19, 2012)

480sparky said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ........It is good that the Admins want to protect copyrights but the rules shouldn't go further than the actual copyright Law does. ..........
> ...



Their rule overreaches.
The Fair Use Doctrine clearly protects any use for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
The first step for any person who believes their copyright is violated is obligatory and that is to send a Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Takedown Notice and if that isn't complied with, only then can they file a suit.

Forbidding any use of pictures for fear of a totally unlikely event is like hiring someone to guard your house against tigers - if you live in North Dakota.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 19, 2012)

I dont know much about copyright laws....but I am all for the return of schwettylens from his abrupt exile. Do not condemn a man for all time on a moments mistake.
Please find it within your boundless generosity to forgive schwetty that he may once again grace the forums with his wit and knowledge


----------



## manaheim (Jul 19, 2012)

Are you going to complain about all the stuff that is recently broken in the TPF interface?  Like the like button being randomly moved off-screen to the right and the "skip to last read" arrow not working?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Their rule overreaches.......



Which is merely your opinion.  Again, start your own forum, then maybe you'll understand why some 'silly' rules get put in place.

I'm not saying that's the reason for it.  I'm just saying the Powers That Be, who started the forum with their own time and money, are the ones who know why.


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 19, 2012)

lol, I hadn't noticed until now but a portion of your signature is also stage right manaheim.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 19, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> lol, I hadn't noticed until now but a portion of your signature is also stage right manaheim.



I know, and I was really proud of my new obnoxious signature, too.  Stupid @#)$(@#$ forum changes.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 19, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I know, and I was really proud of my new obnoxious signature, too.  Stupid @#)$(@#$ forum changes.



If it makes you feel any better, when I stretch my browser across two screens it doesn't wrap any longer


----------



## bogeyguy (Jul 19, 2012)

The TPF sight complaint manager is Helen Waite. Soooo, if you have a problem or a complaint, go to Helen Waite.


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 19, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope that if you are going to complain you would at least become a supporting member...........
> ...



Adblocker Plus my friend.  Best extension ever created for Firefox or chrome or w/e browser you may use.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 19, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Their rule overreaches.
> The Fair Use Doctrine clearly protects any use for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
> The first step for any person who believes their copyright is violated is obligatory and that is to send a Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Takedown Notice and if that isn't complied with, only then can they file a suit.
> 
> Forbidding any use of pictures for fear of a totally unlikely event is like hiring someone to guard your house against tigers - if you live in North Dakota.


Actually it's a moot point.  The bottom line is that the house rules are the house rules.   We don't have to agree with them but we do have to abide by them.


----------



## nmoody (Jul 19, 2012)

jake337 said:


> nmoody said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



Well without the site the people wouldn't be here but you are correct it is the people that make a huge difference. You also have to thank the mods for fostering the community. Mods can make or break a community.

A community is also only a good as the backbone its based off of. The forums are extremely reliable (yes we are going through and upgrade, so some things are broken) with great uptime and features. 

You may enjoy driving a car but without the road to drive on its pretty useless.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 19, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to find how and how much to be a supporting member and can't seem to find this info.
> ...



Yay!!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 20, 2012)

SCraig said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Their rule overreaches.
> ...



Going to the bottom line, the House doesn't get a rake unless there are players at the table.  ...   and it's caused a lot of people to cash in their chips.  Some voluntarily...others were asked to leave.  This forum has so many problems going right now, I would be surprised if it lasts another 6 months...just my .02


----------



## manaheim (Jul 20, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



You won't be the first to predict the demise of the monster, nor shall you be the last.


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 20, 2012)

it's amazing to me that others still think one person makes a difference...on the net.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 20, 2012)

_*The new always carries with it the sense of violation, of sacrilege.  What is dead is sacred; what is new, that is, different, is evil,  dangerous, or subversive.*

Henry Miller
_

_*All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.*
_
_Adlai Stevenson_


_*Discoveries are often made by not following instructions, by going off the main road, by trying the untried.*
_
_Frank Tyger
_

_*It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then  they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you  can't find anyone who disagrees with you.*
_
_Tony Benn
_

*Things only improve when someone is dissatisfied with the status quo and works towards change.*

_Lew Lorton
_


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 20, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This forum has so many problems going right now, I would be surprised if it lasts another 6 months...just my .02



Melodramatic much?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 20, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This forum has so many problems going right now, I would be surprised if it lasts another 6 months...just my .02
> ...



Not particularly.  When I wrote that, I still couldn't see half the posts because of people's signature lines, the buttons were all over the place, and it was very difficult to read any of the threads.

At least that part is fixed, now.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 20, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Fair enough for a member living in the US and displaying an image under the US fair-use legislation, but what about a member in India who wants to display the image of a photographer from Peru?  Are the rules the same for them?  Probably not.  Understanding that the rules about posting images which are not your own seem annoying to some, it's easier in the long run for everyone to do it this way.  Really, is that much harder to post a link?

*


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 20, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> ...



Out of curiosity, there is something I always wondered about.  What is the difference between somebody posting a youtube video and it autoembedding itself and somebody posting a link with image tags around it?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 20, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


I honestly couldn't tell you, but I suspect that the answer may lie in the fact that YouTube has a EULA which covers that, while Joe Photographer who simply display his images on his website doesn't.  Maybe?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 20, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> ...



But this site and the server are based in the US and thus function under US rules - and the site isn't at risk for being sued - and I bet you can't find a site of any type - that has been sued for copyright violation when they were complying with the 'fair use' doctrine.

Lots of other countries have lots of other rules about photography that are much, much more restrictive than the US rules - and the site doesn't require members to follow them.
These are *boogey-man gonna getchs in the dark* responses to simple reality.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 20, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> But this site and the server are based in the US and thus function under US rules - and the site isn't at risk for being sued - and I bet you can't find a site of any type - that has been sued for copyright violation when they were complying with the 'fair use' doctrine.
> 
> Lots of other countries have lots of other rules about photography that are much, much more restrictive than the US rules - and the site doesn't require members to follow them.
> These are boogey-man gonna getchs in the dark responses to simple reality.



True, but our membership is worldwide. Don't forget that ethics play into it too. Just become something isnt prohibited by law doesn't make it morally right...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 20, 2012)




----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whose morality? Mine? yours? Some faceless entity?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 20, 2012)

True, but our membership is worldwide. Don't forget that ethics play into it too. Just become something isnt prohibited by law doesn't make it morally right...[/QUOTE]

There is nothing unethical about Fair Use. That is exactly the point.
The site isn't fostering morality, it's just a silly rule.

Please note that Bitter has just posted what almost certainly is a copyrighted work.
Should he get kicked out also?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 20, 2012)

I drew it.
You can't use it!


----------



## mishele (Jul 20, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> True, but our membership is worldwide. Don't forget that ethics play into it too. Just become something isnt prohibited by law doesn't make it morally right...
> 
> There is nothing unethical about Fair Use. That is exactly the point.
> The site isn't fostering morality, it's just a silly rule.
> ...



YES.....kick his ass out!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

mishele said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > True, but our membership is worldwide. Don't forget that ethics play into it too. Just become something isnt prohibited by law doesn't make it morally right...
> ...



SWEETIE! You are being a **************  **** *** *******  ***  of a ********! Will you please *******  **** ****  *****!  

edit: dURNed FiLTer!


----------



## mishele (Jul 20, 2012)

^^^^^I love it when you talk dirty.....=)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

mishele said:


> ^^^^^I love it when you talk dirty.....=)


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never paid for my membership. Do I need to have my complaints channelled through Lightspeed?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


>



^^ wtf, they have butts?? no. that's just not right.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Awwww... iz U shy! Ah didn't meen to m'bareass you!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

No. Imagine the anatomy here. Clearly, despite wearing pants, they have no legs, otherwise you couldn't reach around like that. So that must mean that their butt is on the opposite side of their face.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> No. Imagine the anatomy here. Clearly, despite wearing pants, they have no legs, otherwise you couldn't reach around like that. So that must mean that their butt is on the opposite side of their face.



Looking for realistic anatomy on a smiley???? You need more 'shrooms!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm just saying that their butts are attached to their faces! you've really ruined smilies for me. I'm pretty sure if I saw that on shrooms it'd be even more messed up.

OH, and btw, do you own the rights to that? I wouldn't want you to get banned.


----------



## mishele (Jul 20, 2012)

Is that butt copyrighted?!!!!!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAA! Look out, here comes KMH!


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 20, 2012)

mishele said:


> Is that butt copyrighted?!!!!!



Mine is.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

Mine is copyright, but not spank proofed.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2012)

Let's get the chant going, shall we?

*"Fair Use Doctrine! Fair Use Doctrine! Fair Use Doctrine!"

*The point is REALLY, exceptionally simple: a DMCA Cease and Desist notice MUST be served, FIRST, before any copyright infringement case can be made. 

However, since the use of a copyrighted photo in the context of education, artistic discussion,or criticism, is SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED as an ***EXCEPTION AGAINST THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL***, the rule against "posting" copyrighted material represents, as The_Traveler stated above, "*boogey-man gonna getchas in the dark responses to simple reality."
*
As to the implied "immorality" of using copyrighted images in a non-profit manner, for purposes of commentary, discussion,education,and so on...oh,puh-lease...United States copyright law is perfectly clear that there is* a clear and obvious NEED TO ALLOW critical, public discussion of a broad range of copyrighted works*. As an undergrad, I spent ten weeks studying copyright laws, issues, and cases at the University of Oregon school of journalism. Every time I see this site's rules and policies on copyright issues, I think of how absolutely outrageous the entire situation actually is. This site operates under a rule basis that is, quite simply, ridiculous, and well...fill in any one of a hundred pejorative pairs here: ___________________ and ___________________.

Of course, this is not my web forum. Tons of misinformation and lunacy makes its way into rules, policies, and even social customs--all over the WORLD, and not only here, on TPF! The fact that a rule might be foolish, idiotic, or contrary to actual realities (scientific, legal, or historical,etc.) if of little consequence for those who *make* the rules. Those who must *follow* the rules, and those who must *enforce* said silly rules, have it the hardest. The bottom line is that TPF has a fundamentally unpopular set of rules that apply to the use of copyrighted works; this set of rules is based on a hugely flawed understanding of the MOST-basic aspect of the Fair Use Doctrine. It is a simple Draconian measure--one that people who are familiar with United States copyright law and fair use understand to be _______________ and _______________ ,and maybe even ______________ (_fill in a trio of disparaging words, according to your own sense of flair and style! You KNOW you want to!_). 

BUT, and this is the most-important thing to keep in mind: "Them is da' rules!". "My house, my rules." "It's my way, or the highway." "Like it, or lump it." "It is what it is." "Them's the breaks." "Too bad, so sad."


----------



## mishele (Jul 20, 2012)

Speaking of "spanking", I need to go read some more of 50 Shades of Grey!!!


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 20, 2012)

Dirty woman.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 20, 2012)

I am going to write the smutty version of Ansel Adam's biography, 10 Shades of Grey. Sensitometry will never be seen the same way again!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 20, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I am going to write the smutty version of Ansel Adam's biography, 10 Shades of Grey. Sensitometry will never be seen the same way again!



That joke is the equivalent of a Smiley Butt! Arrggghhhh!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 21, 2012)

I had thought that '50 shades of grey' was the zone system for compulsive people.


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 21, 2012)

^^  hahaha!


----------



## KmH (Jul 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out  silliness of the rule  not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.
> ...


Plus, only the beginning portion of the 'Fair Use' doctrine was quoted by The_Traveler. Here is the rest with some added emphasis on salient points, and a link to the entire FL102 factsheet PDF - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html



> The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
> The nature of the copyrighted work
> The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
> The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2012)

Oh,for God's sake...

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlaw...tent-prosecution-and-the-physics-of-fair-use/


----------



## unpopular (Jul 21, 2012)

Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc. - Google Scholar

Blanch v. Koons - Google Scholar

But none of this particularly matters. This isn't a court case, this is a privately administered chat forum. What is "fair use" does not much matter when concerning the it's rules and terms of use.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc. - Google Scholar
> 
> Blanch v. Koons - Google Scholar
> 
> But none of this particularly matters. This isn't a court case, this is a privately administered chat forum. What is "fair use" does not much matter when concerning the it's rules and terms of use.



I actually agree completely.  You will never find somebody more in favor of private property rights and the rights of the owner to decide how to handle something however they want.  That's called a free market.

What I feel needs addressed is the fact that rules haven't changed much over the last few years, but what is resulting in a ban or an infraction has changed quite a bit.  For those of us who have been here for years, it is weird that the enforcement of certain rules have changed while the rules have stayed the same.

Perhaps it's time to update the rules and send everybody an acknowledgement of the new rules.  With these forums, that is easily done.  You can't make another post until you acknowledge the new rules.

Then, at least we are all on the same playing field and punishment can be put out as the forum admin/mod's see fit.

In this case, that wasn't the case.  The rules are the exact same, and yet, the enforcement of them(and what is considered a violation of them) has changed.

This needs to be addressed.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 21, 2012)

Well. In the case of Schwetty I think that this has more to do with KMH and Schwetty than it does with the integrity of the community. I believe that the inconsistency here permits this kind of alleged abuse of power. I don't know if this is the case or not, but I do know that KMH kind of likes to play copyright guru (without attention to case law, mind you). I can see how Schwetty may have made him look bad.

As I had said elsewhere, if the moderators acknowledge there is room for discretion, I'd be ok with that - otherwise there is a need for more consistency in how the rules are applied. In any case, bans and suspension should always be carried out only in the event that someone has demonstrated a disregard for site rules in more than one instance over a prolonged period of time despite having received multiple warnings.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Well. In the case of Schwetty I think that this has more to do with KMH and Schwetty than it does with the integrity of the community. I believe that the inconsistency here permits this kind of alleged abuse of power. I don't know if this is the case or not, but I do know that KMH kind of likes to play copyright guru (without attention to case law, mind you). I can see how Schwetty may have made him look bad.


Heck, I don't like either one of them.  If it would have been up to me, I would have banned both of them a long time ago...just as if it was up to them, they probably would have banned me.  The point is, the rules aren't being equally applied.


> As I had said elsewhere, if the moderators acknowledge there is room for discretion, I'd be ok with that - otherwise there is a need for more consistency in how the rules are applied. In any case, bans and suspension should always be carried out only in the event that someone has demonstrated a disregard for site rules in more than one instance over a prolonged period of time despite having received multiple warnings.



Throughout my private messages, the moderators have said there is room for discretion, and that the admin will typically back up whatever a moderator decides.  In this case, that appears to be the case.  A mod made a decision, and it might have been out of feeling slighted, it might have been an excercise of power, or it might have been that other things were deleted that we never got a chance to see.  We will never know.

As it is, Schwetty will be back in a few days, this will all blow over, and hopefully, at some time, the Mod's or Admin will clarify what they see as acceptable use so that this doesn't happen again.

Personally, I still see this entire situation as an overreach of power,(or to give it the beneift of the doubt, a split second decision that would not have been made otherwise) but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 21, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.



Clearly there isn't anything stopping us from complaining about it openly! I just think it's funny that our right to post funny memes is more important than our right to discuss what makes an HDR image a "true" HDR.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.
> ...



Never looked into the HDR threads since I think they should be outlawed...   But then again, my revolt thread was locked, so perhaps the mod's are tired of all of it.

For the first time, I agree with the mod's...at this point, it's just getting silly, including my thread.

They made up their mind, and now we can either toe the line or go elsewhere.  Sounds like they put the ball back in our court.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 21, 2012)

My problem with the HDR thing is the prospect of censoring entire photo-related subjects. I don't believe any on-topic discussion should be discouraged.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> My problem with the HDR thing is the prospect of censoring entire photo-related subjects. I don't believe any on-topic discussion should be discouraged.




Again, never even saw the HDR thread that you are referring to, so I can't have an opinion one way or another.


----------

