Do you find it irritating when a pronouncement is posted and immediately locked preventing any discussion and/or clarification.

Take this statement from Stuffed Shirts latest. [forums.macresource.com]

"Photo postings, whether they be vivid in their content or so subtle that only a few (or one) "gets it" (and its negative connotation) also disrespect the spirit of the forum and its rules, as do statements within posts, in a similar vein.

Should I understand this to mean that any image that might possibly offend just one person cannot be posted? Is the thinest skinned most sensitive poster now the arbiter of what image can be viewed?

Seeking comment/clarification.

Oh, and where do I sign up for my OWC Mercury Elite Mk 1 USB powered Crystal Ball (with content filter).

Spock

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

vote to remove

---

******************************

******************************

Clarification would be nice. That was a nicely written post but it might be better to really spell out what is not acceptable here so that there is no room for confusion/ excuses.

---

JoeM

The question of photos isn't about what may offend, it is
about photos of, for example, YOU, posted by others,
when you do not wish them to be part of this forum.

This aspect of what is appropriate, is old news to an extent.

To continue the example, YOUR posting photos in other
sites/blogs, etc., does happen, but as an individual,
if you have notified Moderators that you do not wish
your photo to be part of this forum, and others continue
to include it (after being asked to refrain from doing so),
then this constitutes poor Forum Netiquette.

The same applies to photos - the sort that only a few
understand - such as a photo of your home, your mother,
etc., which were not a part of this Forum to begin with.
There is an agenda when others engage in such posting,
and MacResource.com is not the place for it.

One's ideas nor the frequency of one's posting are not an
issue. Especially on this side of the Forum. The simplicity
of the TOS can be summed up by applying "The Golden Rule."
Those who frequent the Forum have a good idea, in general
of what is considered appropriate and what is not. One
need not possess a crystal ball.

Also - while OWC does not yet offer a FireWire Crystal Ball,
I understand Radio Shack may follow up the Scale with a USB version.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2006 11:03AM by Stuffed Shirt.

Stuffed Shirt, I think a big part of the problem is when you start throwing around words like "appropriate".

I've said it before, I'll say it again: translated, "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mean "I like this" and "I don't like this", respectively.

"Appropriate" can mean entirely different things to different people. To some people, talking loudly on their cell phones is appropriate. To others, it isn't. (That's just one example-- substitute genital mutilation, nudism, eating placentas, teacher-student relations, or any of a host of other controversial things for 'talking loudly on their cell phones'.)

In other words, for those dense people here, you need to SPELL OUT precisely what is considered "appropriate" and what not. (To some extent, you have already done so, and you are correct in pointing out that most forum members probably already know-- but it can't hurt to remind them.) If the dense people then cross that line, they will know they have done so. IMHO, to hold people to an ineffable standard is just not realistic.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

PeterB, you have a point, but Stuffed Shirt is talking about personal privacy issues. So I will try to make it as clear as I can, although I think Stuffed Shirt made it clear enough. Perhaps you did not realize he was addressing Personal Privacy issues, not standards of taste.

You are not allowed to post pictures of other people, or their houses, or their addresses, or their phone numbers or their credit card numbers or any other personal information which is not yours. That is what Stuffed Shirt said and that is what everyone knew already. This is not new information.

rgG, that did not appear in Stuffed Shirt's post (your red sentence), as far as I can tell. Is that from the TOS? If so, part of the problem might be that most people don't take the time to bother reading through the whole thing, they just hit "OK"...

And no, it was unfortunately NOT clear from Stuffed Shirt's post that he was referring specifically to personal privacy issues. Much of the post was phrased in generalities, such that it was not immediately obvious (at least, not to me) to what he was particularly referring.

At any rate, that's certainly clear and specific enough that I think most people will know when they've crossed the line.



Edit: Oh, and of course-- rgG, thanks for the clarification.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2006 01:28PM by PeterB.

rgG thank you for clarifying the original posting. I also did not completely understand just what it was referring to. I had assumed anyway that other people's personal information was not acceptable so for a while thought that all pictures were banned which didn't seem to make sense.

I'm glad I could help clarify. The red sentence is my attempt to paraphrase what is in the TOS but without the legalese . There will always be disagreements over what is in good taste and what is not, but the main thing here is that a person's right to personal privacy has to be respected.

The issues of taste are much more subjective and I don't think we have had many problems with that at all. We have had a very few isolated incidents, but nothing to worry about. So post away with pictures and as long as they are not worse than what would be seen in an R rated film on this forum and a PG-13 rated film on the other forum, I think we will all be fine. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

And PeterB, thanks for all the bouncing smilies.

voodoopenguin, yes, it would seem that most people would understand that personal information is private, but unfortunately that has not always been the case.

I understood what Stuffed Shirt was saying right away. Don't post a photo of something that only one person would "get" (like their house or their kid). People need to stop looking for "hidden messages" and relax a bit more.

---

$tevie, I think this may be a case where the mods might be privy to quite a bit more than us plebes, and so it was interpreted differently based on whether you had that information. I wasn't looking for "hidden messages"; it was just that Stuffed Shirt's post was very broad, and included such nuggets as this:

"When appropriate, there will be Moderator actions that includes a request for an author to make edits and/or, the removal threads from the forum. 'When appropriate' is the key phrase: It is up to each member to make that event a rare one."

and this:

"The most memorable of lines regarding good judgement include 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it' and 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.....' - and they are as applicable within this forum as they are in every day life."

... I'm sorry, but these sorts of statements are far too general and nonspecific, and could mean or cover anything. That's what I was getting at, that we cannot be held to an indefinable judgment of what is "appropriate" and what isn't. That I wasn't the only one who didn't understand what was meant, suggests that there was indeed some ambiguity there. And it raised my hackles, because I didn't know what (or to whom) he was specifically referring. That, plus the language and tone of the post, and the fact that it was closed right after posting, makes it come across as a bit of a rebuke-- even a little scary.

I think rgG has done an excellent job <kissy, kissy!> of defining the specifics in this case, and clarifying what the precise issues are.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Spock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you find it irritating when a pronouncement is
> posted and immediately locked preventing any
> discussion and/or clarification.
>
> Take this statement from Stuffed Shirts latest.
>
> "Photo postings, whether they be vivid in their
> content or so subtle that only a few (or one)
> "gets it" (and its negative connotation) also
> disrespect the spirit of the forum and its rules,
> as do statements within posts, in a similar vein.
>
> Should I understand this to mean that any image
> that might possibly offend just one person cannot
> be posted? Is the thinest skinned most sensitive
> poster now the arbiter of what image can be
> viewed?
>
> Seeking comment/clarification.
>
> Oh, and where do I sign up for my OWC Mercury
> Elite Mk 1 USB powered Crystal Ball (with content
> filter).
>
> Spock
>
>
You took the words right out of my mouth Spock.
Well it does beg the question.In my opinion.
Maybe if you knew where to sign up for the "Crystal ball" you would know the answer by now.
That could be why the thread was locked,as the Mod who wrote it assumed you would devine the answer using it.LOL

UPDATE. I've just read Stuffed shirt's response and I should have read the whole thread before posting.
This is a good example of not using "Forum Netiquette" Rule No 2, Always read whole thread before posting, as duplicate posts just bore others as the question has alrady been asked.
Sod it Spock. It stays in.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2006 05:28PM by bernadette.

I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.
I will not post photos of BunBun unless explicity granted permission.

---

I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.

LOL, Seacrest!!!

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

---

Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)

PeterB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stuffed Shirt, I think a big part of the problem
> is when you start throwing around words like
> "appropriate".
>
> I've said it before, I'll say it again:
> translated, "appropriate" and "inappropriate" mean
> "I like this" and "I don't like this",
> respectively.
>
> "Appropriate" can mean entirely different things
> to different people. To some people, talking
> loudly on their cell phones is appropriate. To
> others, it isn't. (That's just one example--
> substitute genital mutilation, nudism, eating
> placentas, teacher-student relations, or any of a
> host of other controversial things for 'talking
> loudly on their cell phones'.)
>
> In other words, for those dense people here, you
> need to SPELL OUT precisely what is considered
> "appropriate" and what not. (To some extent, you
> have already done so, and you are correct in
> pointing out that most forum members probably
> already know-- but it can't hurt to remind them.)
> If the dense people then cross that line, they
> will know they have done so. IMHO, to hold people
> to an ineffable standard is just not realistic.
>
>
> Yin says, "I'm hungry. Feed me now!"


I always thought;
Appropriate meant Acceptable= RIGHT,
Inappropriate meant Unacceptable = WRONG?

I suppose it does depend on the context and the situation.

bernadette, that's the problem. Who defines what's "appropriate"?

What's "appropriate" and "acceptable" (and therefore "right") is typically arbitrarily defined by whomever is in power or in the majority; "inappropriate"/"unacceptable"/"wrong" usually also so defined. That they are so defined does not necessarily make them correct... it is possible that the "inappropriate" thing to do may actually be the right thing to do.

For these reasons, what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" can turn on a dime. For example, if tomorrow it was decided that teacher-student relations were "appropriate", then so be it. That is, in my view, "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are purely arbitrary terms, that was my point... and that typically, "appropriate" really translates into "I like this" and "inappropriate" to "I don't like this", respectively... it's a bit of a personal pet peeve, because these terms are often thrown around in academic and/or societal contexts in order to discredit individuals based on innuendo and political correctness.

This is all of course somewhat tangential to the original subject...

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2006 09:22AM by PeterB.

OK, what happened to the original sticky thread with Stuffed Shirts interpretation of the posting policy?

First it was closed, then opened for comment now vanished. WTF?

Spock

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

PeterB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernadette, that's the problem. Who defines
> what's "appropriate"?
>
> What's "appropriate" and "acceptable" (and
> therefore "right") is typically arbitrarily
> defined by whomever is in power or in the
> majority; "inappropriate"/"unacceptable"/"wrong"
> usually also so defined. That they are so defined
> does not necessarily make them correct... it is
> possible that the "inappropriate" thing to do may
> actually be the right thing to do.
>
> For these reasons, what is "appropriate" and
> "inappropriate" can turn on a dime. For example,
> if tomorrow it was decided that teacher-student
> relations were "appropriate", then so be it. That
> is, in my view, "appropriate" and "inappropriate"
> are purely arbitrary terms, that was my point...
> and that typically, "appropriate" really
> translates into "I like this" and "inappropriate"
> to "I don't like this", respectively... it's a bit
> of a personal pet peeve, because these terms are
> often thrown around in academic and/or societal
> contexts in order to discredit individuals based
> on innuendo and political correctness.
>
> This is all of course somewhat tangential to the
> original subject...
>
>
> Yin says, "I'm hungry. Feed me now!"
>
>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at 04/21/06 09:22AM by
> PeterB.

And there was I just thinking it was about the group of people who post to this forum, conforming to the TofS that we all agree on, when we first register to post here.

The moderators decide what is or is not appropriate, which in my mind translates not as what they like or don't like, as its not something they personally decide, but as what is right or wrong according to the above mentioned regulations.

But that is just my opinion, for what its worth.

By the way,what does tangential mean? Is it something similar to "Going off on a tangent"?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2006 04:42PM by bernadette.

bernadette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And there was I just thinking it was about the
> group of people who post to this forum, conforming
> to the TofS that we all agree on, when we first
> register to post here.

Yes, mostly it was; but I was referring more generally to usage of those particular words, which unfortunately I've noticed tend to be easily abused.

> The moderators decide what is or is not
> appropriate, which in my mind translates not as
> what they like or don't like, as its not something
> they personally decide, but as what is right or
> wrong according to the above mentioned
> regulations.

Right... but there too is a point, in that the regulations are arbitrary... one site might say it is OK to do some of the things that the TOS for this one frowns upon, but another site might not (this one), and a third site might have their own set of rules. And all of that is fine, so long as it is recognized that these are purely arbitrary choices, and there is no true "right" or "wrong" here.

> But that is just my opinion, for what its worth.

As is mine.

> By the way,what does tangential mean? Is it
> something similar to "Going off on a tangent"?

Yes, quite correct:

tangential (adj). of, relating to, or along a tangent.

The dictionary/thesaurus widget is built into Tiger, I am finding that I am really expanding my vocab with it... because it reminds me of words that I've forgotten, or helps me find words that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Highly recommended!

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

PeterB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernadette Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And there was I just thinking it was about
> the
> > group of people who post to this forum,
> conforming
> > to the TofS that we all agree on, when we
> first
> > register to post here.
>
> Yes, mostly it was; but I was referring more
> generally to usage of those particular words,
> which unfortunately I've noticed tend to be easily
> abused.
>
> > The moderators decide what is or is not
> > appropriate, which in my mind translates not
> as
> > what they like or don't like, as its not
> something
> > they personally decide, but as what is right
> or
> > wrong according to the above mentioned
> > regulations.
>
> Right... but there too is a point, in that the
> regulations are arbitrary... one site might say it
> is OK to do some of the things that the TOS for
> this one frowns upon, but another site might not
> (this one), and a third site might have their own
> set of rules. And all of that is fine, so long as
> it is recognized that these are purely arbitrary
> choices, and there is no true "right" or "wrong"
> here.
>
> > But that is just my opinion, for what its
> worth.
>
> As is mine.
>
> > By the way,what does tangential mean? Is it
> > something similar to "Going off on a
> tangent"?
>
> Yes, quite correct:
>
> tangential (adj). of, relating to, or along a
> tangent.
>
> The dictionary/thesaurus widget is built into
> Tiger, I am finding that I am really expanding my
> vocab with it... because it reminds me of words
> that I've forgotten, or helps me find words that I
> wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Highly
> recommended!
>
>
> Yin says, "I'm hungry. Feed me now!
-----------------------------------------------------------

I usually rely on Rogets thesaurus and the Oxforg English dictionary, as I'm always looking for new and interesting words to use, as nowadays certain words are just overused on my opinion and it makes a change to see new ones.
It also expands one's vocabulary.