New Offense Structure - Political Content

[CaptainTom]

[Rick Waldroup]

Originally Posted by Michelle Allmon

wow, i missed some major stuff, huh! abel, you are da bomb. if i ever cross the line, feel free to spank me.

Abel, how in the world are you going to pass that up?

[Daniel Bates]

She crossed the line. Right about---there. Should I render the punishment?





...only joking, Mother dear, put that frying pan down!

[iCe]

Dang... I miss all the good invitations...

[Nevyn]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

What is so damn hard to understand about this statement:

"4. Photojournalism is posted for discussion of the photography, the methods used to acquire images and media credentials, and techniques of coverage. They are NOT open for debate about the subject covered."

Post the freaking picture, but all discussion is limited to the above.

Lord, oh, Lord. When did this world lose it's common sense?

(Abel, feel free to ban me if you want.)

Couldn't agree more.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Thinking back at most of the people who have posted violating remarks *not replies to them, were people who never posted PJ photos and usually said nothing else in the PJ section other than the remarks.

Maybe we should turn the PJ section into a resticted section like the adult section that would limit access to people who are really interested in PJ work and that way if some one violates the rules in that section they would just loose their access privelages to the PJ forumn.

I really don't think a photo spread of someones cat or a dog parade is what that section is about anyway but it leans towards more serious PJ work and I have seen more of the former lately than the latter since several of the PJ contributors of the past have stopped pretty much because of the heat that their coverage can and has generated.

It would be really nice if someone could cover this weekend in Austin and tommorrows ceremonies that are open to the public.

[JPalmer]

I agree with Paul.....and I'm a PJ.

[David]

I agree with Paul as well and second the creation of a special PJ section. I cover alot of topics and would like to post them without fearing breaking the rules. Just my thoughts......

[Kar]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

What is so damn hard to understand about this statement:

"4. Photojournalism is posted for discussion of the photography, the methods used to acquire images and media credentials, and techniques of coverage. They are NOT open for debate about the subject covered."

Post the freaking picture, but all discussion is limited to the above.

Lord, oh, Lord. When did this world lose it's common sense?

I think or hope that the PJ section has improved, but the problem is certain people have moved it to the "open talk" section, thus eliminating the actual photo discussion.

[Jim Victory]

Its real simple!

Don't participate in the banter and it will end. It is real hard to argue a political position if no one will respond to you.

[Abel]

unfortunately we have already had to enforce the new policy on a current member...

I hoped that my stance on the subject would have been taken seriously... guess not.

[dsjsws]

Originally Posted by Abel

unfortunately we have already had to enforce the new policy on a current member...

I hoped that my stance on the subject would have been taken seriously... guess not.

It seems really simple to me:

It's Able's and Lisa's forum. Their rules. And, it's our privilege to be able to be on it and use it.
I have personally learned a lot since joining the forum and have met some great photographers to shoot with along the way.
I love this forum and recommend it often.
I want to be able to use it, recommend and enjoy it for a long time to come.

I have however, stumbled across several instances when the lines of politics/photography get blurred. Then, I have seen others where they are not blurred at all. They are just personal attacks and ugly.

Politics - boiled down should be the art of compromise and dealing with human issues. Photography often involves human issues: copyrights, right to privacy, freedom of the press, media ethics, photography laws, etc. The PPA deals with the issues daily.

It's a fine line that is often easy to cross on these issues, especially when your goal is to have the photo tell a story and you are passionate about the photo.

Bottom line: Able and Lisa get to make the rules.

I get to abide by them and enjoy the website. I give them my full support and total appreciation for the use of this website.

Thanks,

Donna

[Dave Cisco]

Originally Posted by Michelle Allmon

wow, i missed some major stuff, huh! abel, you are da bomb. if i ever cross the line, feel free to spank me.

That is sooo hard to pass up.

[Gordon]

I think it's a good idea to try to limit the sorts of back and forth discussions that often spin out of control on these topics.

However, I don't think it is really possible to ensure PJ pictures aren't making some sort of political comment, so I'm not sure how you can really enforce this. That's not to say that every PJ image is an extreme political view, but you can certainly take images that enforce a point of view or denegrate another.

I'm of the opinion that most good, engaging photographs are made that way because of what they communicate or what is read in to them. A lot of PJ images are about politics, so by their nature, communicate political ideas - are they banned ?

And then there are the political decisions that impact photographers rights, freedoms etc - are those now banned as topics of discussion now too ? E.g., restrictions on photography of federal buildings, people getting deported for taking pictures of gas storage facilities, the general chilling effect introduced, mall security guards on power trips etc ?

[Graydon]

Maybe you should add to the punishment by forcing their avatar to default to the attached picture.

I've even resized it so it's ready to use.

It is a bit symbolic of what the user was doing in order to get banned.