Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    1,111
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul F View Post
    What's really intolerable are the people that can't control themselves and get threads closed.
    +1 True That. There are douche bags lurking and I agree with Barry that it makes much more sense to punish that guy - rather than a thread. If you check-in regularly & read different threads on this site, it quickly becomes apparent who the lying a**wipes are, who doesn't know what they are talking about, and who is posting with an agenda. No need to call them out by name.
    Fortunately, there are still knowledgeable folks who's candor & different opinions I enjoy reading.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member paulears's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lowestoft - UK
    Posts
    1,711
    Default
    It's quite funny really - on every forum, there seems to nee a blame culture. Irrespective of who caused it, and why - we're in the poo big time both sides of the Atlantic. It impacts on everyone, and who caused it is immaterial. Our income has suddenly stopped. I see no sign of any income until maybe August? It's very worrying.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    That said, I agree that closing the thread because of one idiot is the wrong approach. It punishes everyone, for the actions of one. So my advice to all mods is: if one guy is out of line, punish that one guy. Kick him off, and let the thread continue.

    But if multiple people start spatting and the thread turns into a dumpster fire (which happens Every. Single. Time someone spouts off about politics) then yes, close the thread.
    Thanks, I tend to agree. A surgical approach. I believe the thread was pruned before it was closed, which is why I had a hard time seeing why it was closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    If people would just FOLLOW THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULES
    Let me back up a bit. It's the rules that I am concerned about, or at least the interpretation thereof. Look at this thread, Invent a sane copyright law. Wow, I started it 5 years ago....

    When I was a teen I began to make videos. I added music to them from the CDs I owned. I also noticed the fine print inside each CD sleeve: "The unauthorized reproduction . . . ." It bothered me. I was torn between the literal reading which said I was a lawbreaker, and the practical side that said this caused no harm. In fact, once or twice it encouraged others to buy the music. It didn't help that every time I spoke to a layperson about it they looked at me like I had OCD.

    It has bothered me throughout my life. I think about it a lot. I know the practical solution (get a lawyer, obtain legal permission, or roll the dice) but not the theoretical. Most people do not want to discuss the theoretical. They are content to learn the practical and move on, no sense in depressing yourself with imagining the ideal.

    Out of desperation, I said, "I know, I'll invite a friendly brainstorm with fellow filmmakers here on DVXUser." I will specifically ask them to put themselves on both sides, first as a person making an innocuous, profitless video, and then as the owner of the music. As a kid making a fun video with my friends, it seems silly that it's illegal to put a rock song from my CD in it. As a musician who happens across a video on Youtube with my song in it, it feels weird. How can both people be right? What is the reconciliation? What would be right if you could start all over. I'm not talking about the current law. I'm not even saying it will ever come to anything. It is enough for me to know the truth and die knowing it.

    So I started the thread with just those instructions. SLAM! With prejudice. "Dude. We don't do politics here. You know this."

    "I know this." By the words of the moderator, it sounds like he thinks I was being deliberately naughty, trying to sneak something under the radar. But honestly it didn't even occur to me that it was political.

    I guess, technically, it is, in the sense that it is about Law. But honestly I didn't even make the connection. When I think about boards banning politics, I imagine your typical meme-filled rants of Democrats vs. Republicans. But in my post I was imagining a calm, deliberate pros-and-cons debate. More like Socrates and Plato, not Obama and Trump.

    ---

    I still contend that a forum doesn't need to ban Politics if it simply bans personal insults. A group of people theoretically could debate various approaches to gun control if they just stick to the facts. If you disagree with someone, you must look for a flaw in their (A) logic or (B) evidence.

    There's really no other way for them to be wrong. For if all a are b, and c is in a, then c = b. The logic is impeccable, so your only solution is to find evidence against the premises (that all a are b and that c is an a).

    However, if they said that all a are b, and c is in b, then c = a, then that is a flaw in logic. Because it could be that there are some b that are not a. If it rains, then the sidewalk will be wet. The sidewalk is wet. Therefore it rained. That's not necessarily true. The sidewalk could be wet because your neighbor sprayed it down with a hose.

    But maybe I might as well say, "Theoretically you could juggle a torch and a tank of gasoline, if you just are careful enough." Because this is not how debates unfold on DVXUser. It goes more like this:

    "all a are b, and c is in a, then c = b"
    "You're stupid."

    There is another forum I frequent, Hacker News. They strictly enforce the rule of no personal attack. Even something as soft as "Did you read the article?" is often trounced upon by the moderators. It seems so gentle compared to a lot of what you see on the Internet. But imagine yourself receiving the question, "Did you read the article?" It is an attack. Somewhere else on this forum someone softly said, "We are really getting to know some of our fellow forum members in these trying times." It sounds so neutral. But we all believe it was a zing. And the person it was directed to immediately felt it as such.

    You just can't say something about another person if it's the least bit insulting, even if it is as small as "Did you read the article?" Even if you know in your heart that they didn't read the article, even if they are just being lazy or stupid or intentionally misleading and they deserve to be called out for their laziness, stupidity, or downright intentional evil!!!! Your only recourse is to identify a flaw in their logic or evidence.

    If you follow that rule, then you can talk about anything.

    We don't follow that rule, and honestly the political threads do get out of hand but does no one notice the insults hurled in a perfectly legitimate thread about cameras? Go start a thread about "Are cinema-grade lenses really necessary?" and tell me it won't be just as bad as "Do you vote Democrat or Republican?"

    I'm not saying let's start a thread about "Do you vote Democrat or Republican?" I'm just asking that if we touch upon law in a thread, that it not be automatically closed.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's like juggling fire and gasoline.

    I just want my Copyright thread back.
    Last edited by combatentropy; 03-18-2020 at 07:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Moderator Zak Forsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    8,265
    Default
    This seems like an opportune time to direct anyone that would like a refresher to The Forum Guidelines and Rules.
    DOWN AND DANGEROUS is now on iTunes :: A smuggler bleeds like anyone else. He just gets more chances to prove it.
    THE SABI COMPANY :: FACEBOOK :: TWITTER :: IMDB :: #DADmovie
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Default
    I understand the full spectrum of what you're saying, and the only coherent answer I can give is: it doesn't work that way. Whether it SHOULD work that way is irrelevant. Whether we WISH it would work that way or not, is irrelevant. All we can do is observe what actually happens and issue what guidance and moderation we can to keep things from going off the rails.

    We have been doing this for 17 years, and these are the rules and enforcement policies we've come to from a whole lot of experience. We've tried to loosen up, we've tried to allow leeway, and every single time it devolves into a dumpster fire. Without exception.

    I've said it many times in the last week: there is a disturbing proportion of the population who won't even wash their hands after taking a dump. And you want to have a gentlemanly scholarly discussion and expect that things will go just peachy? As Ricardo Montalban would say, "Welcome to Fantasy Island."

    We live in a time when we have such polar divisions that we can't even agree on what words mean; an example is "racism", as the two different"sides" out there will offer very different definitions as to what the word even means.

    So the ONLY rational way forward that we've developed, and which I believe is the #1 reason we're still around after 17 years, is: HELL NO, NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Keep your political opinions to yourself, they will only derail and ruin any ability to have a reasonable, fact-based discussion.

    As further evidence, I offer the example of the Thanksgiving dinner table: those are groups of people who love each other, enjoy each other, and are fiercely loyal to each other. But if anyone tried wearing a MAGA hat or a Bernie shirt to dinner, it would inevitably devolve into a five-alarm food fight. Same with religion, same results. And we decided many years ago that such discussions are divisive, destructive, and ultimately bring ZERO benefit to ANYONE who participates in or just spectates on the brawl.

    So yes, there might be certain topics that could stand to be discussed in a reasonable matter, but the craphanders will inject their poison and then inevitably we have to go in, surgically remove posts, ban people and deal with all the drama that that causes, put up with juvenile idiots who register again under new IDs so they can continue their rants, ban them again, and put up with their abuse, hassle, doxxing, and every other infantile and vindictive thing they do (all of which, by the way, cements our opinion that banning them was ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do.)

    So, yeah, it sucks that (literal) asswipes have to ruin everything, but ... That's humanity. And we have to cope with how things are, not how we wish they were. And the way we handle it is, over the last 17 years, the most time-tested and verified overall best method we've found.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •