Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 11, 2011 at 6:23 AM
As you know, we made some recent revisions in the posting guidelines to discourage the intentional disturbance of wildlife in pursuit of photos. I think this is a worthy addition and a vital message we should be conveying.
However, I would like to make one point clear - these new revisions are not license for us to condemm the ethics or integrity of our members. The revisions should only serve as a basis for discussion for photos posted now and going forward, not for photos posted in the past.
We are not to judge the ethics or integrity of any member, only to judge whether photos posted comply with our guidelines. If they do not, we communicate with the member why and deal with only the photo. Doing so, I do believe that the revisions will have the intended effect in short order.
I agree that this is a very important distinction. Comments should always be directed at the photograph, and not at the person. To my mind, this applies to discussions in all the galleries and forums at NPN.
Of all the forums I visit, NPN sees a very miniscule number of flames, comparatively. I attribute this to the culture that the staff and membership have worked so hard to create.
Discussion
2 repliesHowever, I would like to make one point clear - these new revisions are not license for us to condemm the ethics or integrity of our members. The revisions should only serve as a basis for discussion for photos posted now and going forward, not for photos posted in the past.
We are not to judge the ethics or integrity of any member, only to judge whether photos posted comply with our guidelines. If they do not, we communicate with the member why and deal with only the photo. Doing so, I do believe that the revisions will have the intended effect in short order.
Of all the forums I visit, NPN sees a very miniscule number of flames, comparatively. I attribute this to the culture that the staff and membership have worked so hard to create.
--P