via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I post in a couple of forums. I show images, offer insights into how I got the image, and always try to help others. I don't say bad things about people, I ignore many comments that do bother me in one way or another, and I've always tried to say things in a manner that does not imply anything negative or critical. I realized a long time ago that we are all different and we all think very differently and I like those differences for the most part. I posted something in a forum and someone responded and then I responded back. Nothing in the conversation, either his comments or mine, were offensive in any way from my point of view. The moderator of the forum, who is a very nice person, sent me a private email saying that a part of what I put in my response was cut out by the moderator because the moderator felt/believed/thought it was not "friendly, supportive conversation."

The topic was about SOOC to some degree, although not the original post. The sentence below was written by one of the posters, and I believed it was actually written in jest but I responded, his post said, "Realize you are upsetting the people who say that the SOOC is a gift from god and it is "My Style."

My response was "In reality the only image straight out of the camera (for the most part) would be a RAW file, not a JPEG file. As we all know, a JPEG is a processed file, letting the camera make all the decisions, so, a camera is the artist for a JPEG file, not the photographer. And any "style" that may be involved can be contributed to the camera, not the photographer." Part of that response included the words, which were cut out by the moderator, "A rational, thinking individual would know this." I meant the sentence not as a criticism of anyone but as a reference to rational, linear thought processes using science, i.e. RAW is not processed but JPEG is processed so only RAW can actually be SOOC [and, in fact, it is often referred to as a negative], even though there is a belief that SOOC applies to JPEG. I had no ill intent nor was I trying to "put anyone down" in anyway.

The moderator's response to me was this: "Here we are again, Connie, chatting about topic content. I deleted a sentence in your reply to --: A rational, thinking individual would know this.

Please remember that -- Forum is about friendly, supportive conversations. Let's please leave criticism of the great unwashed to main discussion forum.

Thanks much!"

I am stunned that this person would reply in this way, "criticism of the great unwashed" and I have no idea at all what the person means by that. I am also insulted to some degree that this person would assume that I would say something offensive. I can only guess that saying the words "rational" and "thinking individual" were found to be offensive words by the moderator. Obviously the moderator saw those two words and interpolated them to his/her way of thinking, her thinking had absolutely no place in my mind.

What is the role of a forum moderator? To cut out things they don't like, don't agree with, or something THEY think is bad or wrong in some way? How far does a moderator go? I can see a moderator taking down a vile, ranting post as that would be obviously hurtful. But after that, what are the guidelines? Are we now a society that believes we can only say things one way and there is no room for saying something another way? I can also see a moderator posting something in the forum that says, in essence, "hey, cool it." And I've seen that before and that does seem to be needed at times. This actually reminds me of the discussions going on now with Amazon and Facebook and perhaps other sites. I absolutely agree that our conversations should be civil and inclusive and that no one has the right to berate, belittle, or generally snarl at others but should all of our words now be formed by the moderator or some "thought police" type person?

I have to admit I am more than a little perplexed by the email I got. Obviously I won't be posting in that particular forum anymore (and I really did like the forum and have learned a few things in it) as I don't care for that type of extreme policing. Your thoughts on this?

fantom Loc: Colorado

1) You may have too much time on your hands.
2) Your "rational, thinking ...etc." comment can easily be construed as unfriendly, elitist, insulting or pedantic.
3) Cool off and find something useful and constructive to occupy yourself with.
4) Just trying to help.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Your probably right but I do find it annoying when someone else puts their spin on what I wrote. When did so many words become something wrong to say, like "rational"? And, yes, I no doubt have too much time on my hands!

AzGriz Loc: Sedona, Arizona

Agree with you (via the lens) and the moderator was wrong. You tried to express your OWN opinion, but seems that is not allow by the language police.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Speaking personally only, I get so tired of the religion of RAW. I find processing RAW to be such a bore that if that was all there was in digital, I'd revert to strictly film.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This discussion is a very valid one. I am concerned that any comment I might add will make it even more likely to be moved, and that is unfortunate, because it raises questions that each of us needs to consider. I'll try anyway.

We currently live in a society of very fragile people. Because of its "dualism," there is really no middle ground to which two people wanting to agree have any hope of moving. If they do find a way to move there, they will then find themselves otherwise quite alone. The result is almost that attempting any form of civil discussion is a waste.

By the way, if you have not read the book "Thought Police" from a few years ago, I highly recommend it.

HardwareGuy

As long as you asked, that comment did indeed imply that the person you responded to lacked the "intelligence" to understand what you claim to know in a condescending way. Not trying to throw fuel on the fire, but the moderator made a valid point.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

OK, I can understand that. But was it handled correctly? Is it fair for a moderator to simply decide what someone else may mean and then delete content?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

People are different in their thoughts and interpretations.
Some people want only nice things said and nothing negative.
Interpretation of "negative" is up to the individual reader's interpretation.
What may be negative to some, could be appropriate for the circumstances to others.
Some people are adamant in their beliefs and interpretations.
Since they are the moderator/owner of the forum, we are at the mercy of the way they believe and want things to be. Their forum, their rules.

It depends on how wide that latitude may, or may not be.

And yes, the world is getting a narrower latitude on speech.
God forbid, we don't want to offend anyone.....

(Can I say that???)

fantom Loc: Colorado

The OP made a good point that if you do not process the RAW image you are letting the camera be the artist. If you want to rely on an engineer in Kyoto to make well intentioned (and frequently very good) decisions about your photos that is fine. You are the one who needs to decide how you want it portrayed----your interpretation or someone else's.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Thanks for your comment on the subject of RAW, but that really had no bearing on what happened. It could have been some other subject, too. And, RAW is not a "religion," just one way to take an image and we all get to choose how we do that and what we are comfortable and happy with in the end and there is no right or wrong way.

niteman3d Loc: South Central Pennsylvania, USA

The implication would seem to me to be that anyone who didn't know that (whatever it was) was not a rational, thinking human being?

Personally, I'm willing to give up a little freedom of expression and the possibility of being misunderstood by a moderator in exchange for a relatively focused venue where we can discuss our hobby without the vitriol and constant flame wars of the old days on the internet. By leaving the forum, you lose something plus you don't get to find out if it will happen again. But, as you say, we all think differently. Peace.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Little here, little there,.....

danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD

In my opinion we are politically correct AD NAUSEAM, we should be able to write what we think with truthfulness and integrity without being abnoxious on one hand and without being so politically correct and so super sensitive on the other.
We are grown ups, so if you can not take a little heat, get out of the kitchen
Example... I had an argument with a lady here on UHH about telling the truth to the photographer of a bad photo, in my opinion this will help imrove his/her performance and picture taking, alas, she insisted that we have to say "good words and praises" even if that photo is not good at all...How is one suppose to learn (from his/her mistakes) if nobody will point him/her in the right direction?
I think we get insulted way too fast and way too easily.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

How would one describe a "bad" photo? "Could be better."?
Just doesn't seem to get the point across as well.
Almost ALL photos could be better, it's just a matter of interpretation.
And who gets to say where a photo sits on a scale of 0 (lousy) to 10 (excellent)?