Unfair Denial by Forum moderator?
Nov 18, 2019 08:59:51 #
I don't get involved here much anymore but out of curiosity I just went through many of the comments in FYC many of which are the topic here.
What truly amazes with both sides is seeing so many older people act like such children over small issues on a photography forum. I am disturbed by how sensitive people can be over these little things. How is it to take such things so personally, be so easily offended and get so defensive when faced with any criticism?
I couldn't survive in the real world let alone the pressure cooker of art grad school that I am currently in if I had such thin skin. It's even funnier to have this viewpoint as a "millennial" the supposedly oversensitive situation.
What truly amazes with both sides is seeing so many older people act like such children over small issues on a photography forum. I am disturbed by how sensitive people can be over these little things. How is it to take such things so personally, be so easily offended and get so defensive when faced with any criticism?
I couldn't survive in the real world let alone the pressure cooker of art grad school that I am currently in if I had such thin skin. It's even funnier to have this viewpoint as a "millennial" the supposedly oversensitive situation.
Nov 18, 2019 09:12:01 #
larryepage wrote:
I normally do not enter discussions such as this o... (show quote)
Quite a bit of truth. What do you think of those who profit from and contribute to discussions of palette, composition, audience, etc.? I think these are worth the effort. Also, the hostiles help keep one strong and focused.
Nov 18, 2019 10:26:22 #
Here is the thread that started all of this discord:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-1.html
I posted a picture, Bob downloaded it, edited it then reposted it with comments. I pointed out to Bob that it was against the rules of the section to edit pictures and to repost them without the permission of the originator. I also, as other posters do on here, have a line in my signature requesting people not to alter my picture. Bob appears to think that overlaying lines and symbols on a picture then reposting it isn't editing. Bob refused to acknowledge what he was doing was not allowed and continued to insist that he wasn't doing anything wrong.
Bob thinks that rules don't apply to him and are there to limit his freedom to do as he pleases.
Graham
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-1.html
I posted a picture, Bob downloaded it, edited it then reposted it with comments. I pointed out to Bob that it was against the rules of the section to edit pictures and to repost them without the permission of the originator. I also, as other posters do on here, have a line in my signature requesting people not to alter my picture. Bob appears to think that overlaying lines and symbols on a picture then reposting it isn't editing. Bob refused to acknowledge what he was doing was not allowed and continued to insist that he wasn't doing anything wrong.
Bob thinks that rules don't apply to him and are there to limit his freedom to do as he pleases.
Graham
Nov 18, 2019 10:55:11 #
Graham Smith wrote:
Here is the thread that started all of this discor... (show quote)
False. That was not the post R.G. banned me for, and Graham’s claims about my posts are a lie. Easily Checked out, so it’s suggested you all do so.
Nov 18, 2019 11:11:27 #
artBob wrote:
False. That was not the post R.G. banned me for, and Graham’s claims about my posts are a lie. Easily Checked out, so it’s suggested you all do so.
As I stated, it is the thread that started it all off.
Nov 18, 2019 11:14:02 #
artBob wrote:
False. That was not the post R.G. banned me for, and Graham’s claims about my posts are a lie. Easily Checked out, so it’s suggested you all do so.
Ok so now I understand. We have a guy who think he is the 'president' and assumes that by repeating 'It is a lie' many times everyone will accept the falsehood of being a lie as the truth.
I checked the thread.
Yes there is a modification of an image. Yes it is against the rule. Yes there is bad faith, yes there is demeaning statements.... (All from you my dear fellow bob...)
But now, this a lie. A grand old lie about this being a lie.
Confused yet? You should not be. This is now a way of life, folks who lie to your face, refuse to back down and then accuse the other of lying about them.
The kicker is that you accuse the other person of not only lying but 'standing in the way of education'. Then, another damning sentence.... 'Good photographers' are ornery ****' (paraphrasing). This to justify your attitude as you seem to think you and only you are a good photographer in here as well as the only 'teacher'. Sorry the best teachers are out there doing something and 'teach' by doing, setting example and become inspirational. You are neither of those things, just another meaninglessness user with an over inflated ego that prevents you to see what is really going on.
If before I was ambivalent and felt it was all about perception and understanding now I know that it is not about perception at all but about a person who is simply of bad faith, refuse to admit an error (or several as seen in this thread) and tries to drag folks in the mud.
Congratulation bob, you just joined the legion.
-
Nov 18, 2019 11:52:34 #
artBob wrote:
False. That was not the post R.G. banned me for, and Graham’s claims about my posts are a lie. Easily Checked out, so it’s suggested you all do so.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gotta respond to that!
The post to which Graham linked was, in fact, only the straw that initiated the progressive cracking and final collapse of your camel’s back!
And to accuse Graham Smith of lying? Abominable, shameful, and preposterous!
All UHHers familiar with Graham’s contributions over the years know full well that lying is not in his toolbox. In yours, however, it is a tool bright and shiny with use. The most recent egregious example is your impugning of Graham’s honesty.
Your other lies are most often woven into your common gambit of damning the works of others with faint praise. You have taken to heart, personalized, and wholly internalized the words of Alexander Pope in the mid 1730s (as close as I can recall; I’m a little better with memorable words than with dates...)
Pope wrote:
“Damning with faint praise, you assent with civil leer,
And without sneering, you teach the rest to sneer;
Willing to wound, yet you be afraid to strike,
You hint a fault, but hesitate dislike.”
(The sense of his words is there, and I’ll wager that the wording is close.)
Pope clearly had your sort in mind!
‘Nuff said.
Nov 18, 2019 12:09:29 #
I've done all the explaining to the OP that I intend to do. For anybody else that's interested, I'd like to clarify a few points.
ArtBob has a history of causing aggravation and he also has a history of denying that he is the problem, when the truth is he has in many cases been the instigator and perpetrator. He has been guilty of instigating aggravation in FYC, which is why I've become involved. He likes to present himself as a victim and his denial of culpability raises the concern that he'll continue to cause aggravation, because the simple fact is he won't take a talking to.
I gave him two opportunities to acknowledge that his behaviour had caused problems and if he'd accepted either opportunity, that would have been enough for me. However, he didn't go for it, which confirmed my suspicion that he didn't see himself as being a problem and would therefore continue to be a problem. That has been my main concern throughout. He has the potential to put people off participating in FYC. He is already guilty of causing annoyance, offence and insult and he has had that brought to his attention, which unfortunately wasn't enough to resolve the issues.
My fellow co-moderators are in complete agreement with my decision to ban him. I have not at any point taken any of this personally and my main concern throughout has been the potential harm that he could do to the section. If he'd been less intractable I would have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but apparently that's not his way.
ArtBob has a history of causing aggravation and he also has a history of denying that he is the problem, when the truth is he has in many cases been the instigator and perpetrator. He has been guilty of instigating aggravation in FYC, which is why I've become involved. He likes to present himself as a victim and his denial of culpability raises the concern that he'll continue to cause aggravation, because the simple fact is he won't take a talking to.
I gave him two opportunities to acknowledge that his behaviour had caused problems and if he'd accepted either opportunity, that would have been enough for me. However, he didn't go for it, which confirmed my suspicion that he didn't see himself as being a problem and would therefore continue to be a problem. That has been my main concern throughout. He has the potential to put people off participating in FYC. He is already guilty of causing annoyance, offence and insult and he has had that brought to his attention, which unfortunately wasn't enough to resolve the issues.
My fellow co-moderators are in complete agreement with my decision to ban him. I have not at any point taken any of this personally and my main concern throughout has been the potential harm that he could do to the section. If he'd been less intractable I would have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but apparently that's not his way.
Nov 18, 2019 12:17:07 #
artBob wrote:
Seriously BebulLamar, "proven" can be a ... (show quote)
Bob,
You speak a lot of truth, proof, proving, perceptions, misperceptions, facts.....I wish you could see that none of these are relevant to the question of whether or not your words/actions directed at someone have been hurtful to them.
I once knew someone who liked to punch people on the shoulder as a form of greeting. Some would complain that it hurt them. He would respond "Oh no, that doesn't hurt". It wasn't his call to make....
In the context of UHH photographic conversations, if someone feels offended or hurt by your actions/words aimed at them, shouldn't you try to smooth the waters instead of roiling them?
Nov 18, 2019 13:35:12 #
Nov 18, 2019 13:55:40 #
[quote=artBob]How could it have been a wrong decision if we are having a discussion? Sincerely.
Because it just throws more gas on the fire.
Perhaps you have read some of my recent posts, revealing that the people I have worked with over the past 30 years were quite varied, from those pursuing or in the art field, to women getting away from newly retired husbands hanging around the house too much. Your perception of my "superior attitude" was rarely supported in my student evaluations, also reviewed by my bosses. So, the sensible thing is to align you with the very small minority (about 3 in 500) who felt that way. Coupled with your hostility to art professionals, it explains a lot. News flash: Commercial Artists, Fine Artists, Art Ed majors--all have some in their ranks who attack the other fields. They are insecure. Each field, as I tried to show with my analogy to music types, has its own areas. The only thing that matters to me is that every person, who wants to, is aiming for the highest standards in their chosen field.
I taught for 35 years and the vast majority of student evals are written to keep the instructor happy so grades aren't endangered. How nice that you think only 3 of every 500 don't think you are great-your ego is certainly healthy. I am not hostile to all art professionals, just the pretentious ones who think they are superior to anyone who disagrees with them.
You irritate me quite a bit when you write that "You do often come across as condescending and righteous in the sense that you know 'ART'."
You irritate a lot of people.
I have taught it, been paid to write and jury, and practice it.
Getting paid just means you got paid, not that you are superior at something. A lot of unpaid amateurs are as good or better than the majority of "paid pros".
If someone knows more than you, it strikes me as nuts to put them down. ...I feel that your personal dislike that some are superior to you is not helping.
It is not someone's knowledge being superior to me or others, it is their attitude and how they present themselves.
My "artBob" handle? Really. I thought it showed that the person was important, the speciality less so.
And obviously in this case the person really thinks they are important. Or doesn't the fact so many think the same about you have any effect on your thinking?
I think I covered the points that bothered me about your statement. Actually, I didn't find your gripes helpful because they were unlike some others who criticized my behavior more factually and less emotionally...
When it comes to Art Critique it is 99% opinion/emotions/likes etc. unless the person's techniques are really bad.
Because it just throws more gas on the fire.
Perhaps you have read some of my recent posts, revealing that the people I have worked with over the past 30 years were quite varied, from those pursuing or in the art field, to women getting away from newly retired husbands hanging around the house too much. Your perception of my "superior attitude" was rarely supported in my student evaluations, also reviewed by my bosses. So, the sensible thing is to align you with the very small minority (about 3 in 500) who felt that way. Coupled with your hostility to art professionals, it explains a lot. News flash: Commercial Artists, Fine Artists, Art Ed majors--all have some in their ranks who attack the other fields. They are insecure. Each field, as I tried to show with my analogy to music types, has its own areas. The only thing that matters to me is that every person, who wants to, is aiming for the highest standards in their chosen field.
I taught for 35 years and the vast majority of student evals are written to keep the instructor happy so grades aren't endangered. How nice that you think only 3 of every 500 don't think you are great-your ego is certainly healthy. I am not hostile to all art professionals, just the pretentious ones who think they are superior to anyone who disagrees with them.
You irritate me quite a bit when you write that "You do often come across as condescending and righteous in the sense that you know 'ART'."
You irritate a lot of people.
I have taught it, been paid to write and jury, and practice it.
Getting paid just means you got paid, not that you are superior at something. A lot of unpaid amateurs are as good or better than the majority of "paid pros".
If someone knows more than you, it strikes me as nuts to put them down. ...I feel that your personal dislike that some are superior to you is not helping.
It is not someone's knowledge being superior to me or others, it is their attitude and how they present themselves.
My "artBob" handle? Really. I thought it showed that the person was important, the speciality less so.
And obviously in this case the person really thinks they are important. Or doesn't the fact so many think the same about you have any effect on your thinking?
I think I covered the points that bothered me about your statement. Actually, I didn't find your gripes helpful because they were unlike some others who criticized my behavior more factually and less emotionally...
When it comes to Art Critique it is 99% opinion/emotions/likes etc. unless the person's techniques are really bad.
Nov 18, 2019 14:08:50 #
...Finally, I think your suggestion of "mending relationships" is a good one. Since no one can pin the breakdown on me, I think "via the lens" and "R.G.' should apologize, unless they can prove (my post in the context of the previous post) that I started the "abrasion."
Thank you for your sincere assessment.
Bob[/quote]
So you are pure as the wind driven snow and "they" started it and bear 100% of the blame? Those who criticize you are wrong but any support is "sincere"
Thank you for your sincere assessment.
Bob[/quote]
So you are pure as the wind driven snow and "they" started it and bear 100% of the blame? Those who criticize you are wrong but any support is "sincere"
Nov 18, 2019 14:12:34 #
None of The posts since my last statement is more than a perception, perceptions not shared by the "all" or "everyone knows" posters who like to use that. Perceptions are, as everyone should know, quite fallible.
Point by point then:
Graham did "lie" in stating "Here is the thread that started all of this discord." That's a perception, actually contradicted by R.G., who says, "ArtBob has a history of causing aggravation and he also has a history of denying that he is the problem, when the truth is he has in many cases been the instigator and perpetrator."
You folks can't get the story straight because you perceive in a prejudiced manner.
Then we get to R.G.'s comment. He seems to be personally irritated by my calling him out for hijacking, and not perceiving objectively, with me or in some of his "helping" posts.
He lies about my being "intractable" concerning the rules of FYC. First, only some on the site defined "edit" as using illustrative lines. Much of R.G.s false claim was that I intended to ignore that rule. To the contrary, I argued only to show that I had in good faith not “edited” Graham’s photo. Three proofs follow that prove they are wrong [and if anyone want to dispute, puh-lease use fact and reasoning, not your perception and "infallible" view]: (1) Dictionary; (2) common usage in books about composition and other visual elements; (3) Graham HIMSELF, who, as I discovered later to my embarrassment and ADMISSION OF FAULT, has in his small print: "Please do not Edit or mark my images in any way." Edit OR mark. Why, every time I have brought this up, and I tried to get R.G. to acknowledge it (what, a million times?) no one responds. To me, gentlemen (and the one lady who has been in on the brouhaha), these are irrefutable proofs that editing and marking are two different things. The argument was instigated by R.G. himself, who would not see that I had admitted my mistake and would not “mark” in the future. Read the thread again. You come up with a different take, show me, specifically. It goes back to R.G.’s hurt feelings, as I see it.
The next lie of R.G., is that I refused to follow the rules. No, I clearly stated I would not mark up work any more, even though I had agreed that R.G.'s and the other arguments were meaningless. R.G. continued, and continues, to spread the lie that I refused to agree to follow the rules of the forum. BTW, as a moderator myself, I also called him out for NOT really reading my posts, and seeing what he wanted, thus himself leading to discord. It seems he was a bit sensitive, if not infallible in his perception of himself. He did not refute my examples of his unhelpful and narrow “help” of others. More fuel to his personal resentment, I think.
As noted, and again none of you have dealt with this, there are many who have responded to this thread who agree that my posts were not abrasive, and that R.G. had no real basis for his presumptive action. Here's but one, a PM. You can read the others, but since you have not ever acknowledged them, I suspect extremely biased perceptions on your parts. The quotation:
"FYI - I did not find your post on the Yosemite tunnel shots to be offensive. Not in the least. I was surprised at the reaction there. Too many thin skinned artists in that section and they can’t handle honest conversation. They pump up their egos and wrap themselves in warm cocoons from their comrades compliments."
I totally agree with him, you all forcefully remind me of those people, among the literally thousands for whom I have conducted critiques, of the narrow minded mouths who have to be worked around to keep the critique on track and beneficial to all.
Finally, adding to my proof that R.G. misperceives or lies, and you all are co-dependents, is the quote from Connie, whom the valorous and self-abnegating R.G. said he was defending from insults. Here are her own words contradicting him:
"Someone wrote the following about several YNP shots I posted, which is ok, they have a right to their opinion and I was not offended in any way, although this particular person is a little harsh and unrelenting in some ways in the comments made.
“Their words, "I like to compare photography/art to music—there are types, and the important thing for me is excellence in your type. From open mic, through garage band, to cover band, to top forty, country, rap, on to classical—each has a goal and audience. So with photography. “From what she says, Connie's seems akin to a good cover band, which she obviously does well in terms of technique and composition...." Since it is obvious that either you all cannot or will not read, let me pull out the words to which I refer: "I WAS NOT OFFENDED IN ANY WAY."
So, to all of you, YOU look in the mirror! You claims are baseless, your hostile defensiveness childish, except for the damage you have done to people who really want to learn and give. Truly, the evidence supports that you indeed are in a cocoon of self regard, wrapped in the (praise only please) people who admire or need you.
Again, I double dare promise on my Mom's combat boots to respond to any facts, if in the context of what preceded my writing, whether defense or apology is needed. Otherwise wail away. I will not respond to any of you unless you write some slanderous or false thing.
Point by point then:
Graham did "lie" in stating "Here is the thread that started all of this discord." That's a perception, actually contradicted by R.G., who says, "ArtBob has a history of causing aggravation and he also has a history of denying that he is the problem, when the truth is he has in many cases been the instigator and perpetrator."
You folks can't get the story straight because you perceive in a prejudiced manner.
Then we get to R.G.'s comment. He seems to be personally irritated by my calling him out for hijacking, and not perceiving objectively, with me or in some of his "helping" posts.
He lies about my being "intractable" concerning the rules of FYC. First, only some on the site defined "edit" as using illustrative lines. Much of R.G.s false claim was that I intended to ignore that rule. To the contrary, I argued only to show that I had in good faith not “edited” Graham’s photo. Three proofs follow that prove they are wrong [and if anyone want to dispute, puh-lease use fact and reasoning, not your perception and "infallible" view]: (1) Dictionary; (2) common usage in books about composition and other visual elements; (3) Graham HIMSELF, who, as I discovered later to my embarrassment and ADMISSION OF FAULT, has in his small print: "Please do not Edit or mark my images in any way." Edit OR mark. Why, every time I have brought this up, and I tried to get R.G. to acknowledge it (what, a million times?) no one responds. To me, gentlemen (and the one lady who has been in on the brouhaha), these are irrefutable proofs that editing and marking are two different things. The argument was instigated by R.G. himself, who would not see that I had admitted my mistake and would not “mark” in the future. Read the thread again. You come up with a different take, show me, specifically. It goes back to R.G.’s hurt feelings, as I see it.
The next lie of R.G., is that I refused to follow the rules. No, I clearly stated I would not mark up work any more, even though I had agreed that R.G.'s and the other arguments were meaningless. R.G. continued, and continues, to spread the lie that I refused to agree to follow the rules of the forum. BTW, as a moderator myself, I also called him out for NOT really reading my posts, and seeing what he wanted, thus himself leading to discord. It seems he was a bit sensitive, if not infallible in his perception of himself. He did not refute my examples of his unhelpful and narrow “help” of others. More fuel to his personal resentment, I think.
As noted, and again none of you have dealt with this, there are many who have responded to this thread who agree that my posts were not abrasive, and that R.G. had no real basis for his presumptive action. Here's but one, a PM. You can read the others, but since you have not ever acknowledged them, I suspect extremely biased perceptions on your parts. The quotation:
"FYI - I did not find your post on the Yosemite tunnel shots to be offensive. Not in the least. I was surprised at the reaction there. Too many thin skinned artists in that section and they can’t handle honest conversation. They pump up their egos and wrap themselves in warm cocoons from their comrades compliments."
I totally agree with him, you all forcefully remind me of those people, among the literally thousands for whom I have conducted critiques, of the narrow minded mouths who have to be worked around to keep the critique on track and beneficial to all.
Finally, adding to my proof that R.G. misperceives or lies, and you all are co-dependents, is the quote from Connie, whom the valorous and self-abnegating R.G. said he was defending from insults. Here are her own words contradicting him:
"Someone wrote the following about several YNP shots I posted, which is ok, they have a right to their opinion and I was not offended in any way, although this particular person is a little harsh and unrelenting in some ways in the comments made.
“Their words, "I like to compare photography/art to music—there are types, and the important thing for me is excellence in your type. From open mic, through garage band, to cover band, to top forty, country, rap, on to classical—each has a goal and audience. So with photography. “From what she says, Connie's seems akin to a good cover band, which she obviously does well in terms of technique and composition...." Since it is obvious that either you all cannot or will not read, let me pull out the words to which I refer: "I WAS NOT OFFENDED IN ANY WAY."
So, to all of you, YOU look in the mirror! You claims are baseless, your hostile defensiveness childish, except for the damage you have done to people who really want to learn and give. Truly, the evidence supports that you indeed are in a cocoon of self regard, wrapped in the (praise only please) people who admire or need you.
Again, I double dare promise on my Mom's combat boots to respond to any facts, if in the context of what preceded my writing, whether defense or apology is needed. Otherwise wail away. I will not respond to any of you unless you write some slanderous or false thing.
Nov 18, 2019 14:14:11 #
Perhaps my education, learning, teaching, and practice in and of photography is more technical, methodological, skill and business based, more so that philosophical or pseudo-artistically positioned. I'm more of a "nuts and bolts" kinda guy. So...in terms of teaching, helping, advising and "mentoring" other folks, here on this forum, I find that there are so many people needing very basic technical help in their photography before the can go on to "higher" more sophisticated art forms in their photography. Many are lacking the basics.
All of the vitriolic rhetoric and ongoing protracted bickering is not only a disservice to folks who just want to learn and advance their skill levels but also to the more advanced workers. Theses behaviors drain all the oxygen in the conversation and oftentimes the crux of an important question or conversation is suffocated and left behind to die.
As pointed out, this particular problem started when Bob, overlayed Graham's image and "edited" although Graham's posts all carry a notice requesting no such edits. A lengthy argument ensued and continued long beyond the original thread. Whatever teachings may have resulted from Bob's learned advice, based on his long career as an educator, was lost in the chaos. What could have survived as a strictly verbal critique "died on the table" and here we are still arguing! If anything valuable should be taken away from the original thread and this one is that sticking to the rules, respecting each others request as per editing and confining critiques to the appropriate section will promote the teaching and learning resources of this forum and help create a more cooperative, collegial, productive, and welcoming environment for those who wish to participate here.
Following procedural rules, organization, and guidelines do not make anyone less creative, artistic, philosophical nor does it restrict their freedom of speech or opinion. In the case of this forum, it simply sets a time and a place for various activities, specialties, and allows folks to enjoy there craft, hobby, art or gear as they like to.
It's really discouraging, disheartening and frustrating when a perfectly interesting question, conversation or discourse about PHOTOGRAPHY, turns into an argument over semantics, tangential philosophical pr psychological ramblings far beyond the original subject and worst of all personal attacks, name-calling and, excuse my vernacular, an unmitigated pissing contest! Sorry folks, I oftentimes cuss when I vent- it prevents digestive discomfort, heart attacks, and other medical emergencies!
All of the vitriolic rhetoric and ongoing protracted bickering is not only a disservice to folks who just want to learn and advance their skill levels but also to the more advanced workers. Theses behaviors drain all the oxygen in the conversation and oftentimes the crux of an important question or conversation is suffocated and left behind to die.
As pointed out, this particular problem started when Bob, overlayed Graham's image and "edited" although Graham's posts all carry a notice requesting no such edits. A lengthy argument ensued and continued long beyond the original thread. Whatever teachings may have resulted from Bob's learned advice, based on his long career as an educator, was lost in the chaos. What could have survived as a strictly verbal critique "died on the table" and here we are still arguing! If anything valuable should be taken away from the original thread and this one is that sticking to the rules, respecting each others request as per editing and confining critiques to the appropriate section will promote the teaching and learning resources of this forum and help create a more cooperative, collegial, productive, and welcoming environment for those who wish to participate here.
Following procedural rules, organization, and guidelines do not make anyone less creative, artistic, philosophical nor does it restrict their freedom of speech or opinion. In the case of this forum, it simply sets a time and a place for various activities, specialties, and allows folks to enjoy there craft, hobby, art or gear as they like to.
It's really discouraging, disheartening and frustrating when a perfectly interesting question, conversation or discourse about PHOTOGRAPHY, turns into an argument over semantics, tangential philosophical pr psychological ramblings far beyond the original subject and worst of all personal attacks, name-calling and, excuse my vernacular, an unmitigated pissing contest! Sorry folks, I oftentimes cuss when I vent- it prevents digestive discomfort, heart attacks, and other medical emergencies!
Nov 18, 2019 14:34:41 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.