Is Charlie pushing the envelop and testing the NPN System again?
Discussion
19 replies
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM
I am pretty pissed at Charlie's B actions recently. Think he is pushing the NPN envelope again.
First he posts the "Lon Overacker is a purist and I am glad", http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=65992&CGISESSID=38923344b12b15541674e2945445021e&u=19322 but continues to complain he did not understand why his "landscape" (with obvious hand of man) was moved to M&N by Lon. Another poster says they won't post in M&N because it is second rate. So, I innocently post "I think more people should visit, comment, and post in M&N. The gallery is far from second rate and it is a real shame a lot of people on NPN have that perception" (which was a mistake on my part since it lead to the thread below).
The other question I have is the 25% Hand of Man rule. I received and email from Barbara G asking why there are images in M&N that are more than 25% hand of man, and should they be removed? She did not understand why they were there....... or is this discretionary decision of the moderators? Just curious since I am relatively new as a moderator.
BTW, IMO - Charlie likes to create controversy.
Posted by Keith Bauer on August 19, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Hi Eva: I've read Charlie's posts as well. Yes, I think Charlie somehow gets some joy out of creating controversy. He must really enjoy other sites where people behave poorly and regularly bash each other. When he posted his Canyon De Chelly image in M&N, I commented and said that it was clear this belonged in M&N and not landscape. I have no idea why he would think otherwise. His later diatribe in his second post was simply rude in my opinion.
Jim: Have you had any more conversations with Charlie via e-mail? I think he needs to be told that his behaviors are pushing the limits and he can either play by the rules or be asked to leave.
I think Charlie is looking for attention, for whatever reason. After reading the thread here in our forum (A Letter from Charlie), it appears he is reverting to old ways. I agree that Jim might discuss this with him once again.
Eva, the guideline for 25% in M&N was set because we were seeing images with little 'nature' in them. Personally, I would not remove an image that doesn't meet the M&N guideline, but I would make a comment to the poster that the image is 'out of bounds', and restate the guideline.
--P
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 19, 2011 at 6:19 PM
Thanks Hank and Preston.
Preston, with regards to the 25% guideline, if a post clearly contains nothing natural (inside a barn, street scene), both I and I believe Kah Kit (since I asked him about this a while ago) will either comment on the post or send an email to the poster. I believe Barbara's question was related to Charlie's "Lon post" and his follow up post on M&N. where she asked me about the 25% guideline on the post and then sent an email to me also. The more I think about, his post of 95% chain with a tiny leaf was also pushing the limit on M&N.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on August 19, 2011 at 8:01 PM
Preston is correct on the 25% max for HOM content, though there is wiggle room. If an image is mostly HOM, I would simply post a comment stating as much for the first offense, but delete there after.
Yes, I believe Charlie needs to be handled as a "troubled member." Not sure what the exact diffinition of that it is, but it seems to fit Charlie. I notice his posts in general discussion but not always in other forums, so please email me if you spot more "trouble from Charlie." :-/
Posted by Pat Sampson on August 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM
Charlie creates work for all of us. I'd much rather spend my time doing... well, pretty much anything besides discussing Charlie or explaining a guideline or policy to him. I would say I'd just ignore him but since I have an obligation to monitor his comments in the gallery and the flora forum, that's not really an option. However, My plan is to ignore him unless he does something that's clearly outside the site guidelines, in which case I'll ask that he be banned.
So this is the only post I'll make with regard to Charlie, unless I'm asking that he be banned. If he posts in the general discussion that he can't post his favorite images on flora because we won't allow flash, or that we have too few lens baby images or not enough images of daisies or that one or both of the moderators is ignoring him, I won't be responding to him. As has already been mentioned above, there's no rational basis there for a dialog. I will continue to comment on his images and respond civilly to questions concerning photography so long as he conducts himself civilly in my areas of responsibility.
There are too many interesting and worthwhile things to do on this site besides satisfy Charlies' need for emotional engagement.
pat
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM
Sorry, just saw your post here Eva. I haven't visited this part in quite a while. It had been pretty quiet. I figured I'd chime in since I've been named a couple times in these posts - even honored to have an entire post named after me! whoo hoo.
I purposefully laid low in those threads mainly because I didn't want to feed the flames. Lots I could say and I'm like any other person, I could easily be just as combative as the next person. The one comment I actually took offense to was Robert Potts in the "Man and Nature deserve more respect" thread. where he wrote:
"Be nice to Charlie. He may be onto something. Would the Flora gallery kick something into the macro gallery or vice versa? Perhaps the "Big Cheese" gallery is a bit too full of itself. I am not an expert, but it seems like these galleries take on a personallity of their own. "
That was rather inflammatory I thought.
Aside from that, I've been watching Charlie too and actually his recent posting and comments have been pretty normal. He's been leaving good, constructive comments on images and not really stirring things up.
From what has been said and disclosed from before, I simply think this is a matter of age and the associated things that happen to me. I see it in my father and my wife's mother. for some reason we just get angrier as we get older and things like dementia come in to play.
Nothing much we can do other than to monitor and deal with things as they come. I'm guessing he will continue to swing back and forth. Hopefully not the extent where he leaves or gets kicked off.
Lon
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 21, 2011 at 9:05 PM
Strike 2?
Ok, so now he's getting on my nerves. Almost forgot this little jewel he posted in my latest post in Landscape:
I just posted a reaction to that remark. It was childish and I treated it accordingly. Of course, now I'M the one with the bullseye on my back!
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM
Thanks for the support Hank. I'm guessing though that Mr. C. won't be going back in to that thread to check. If he does, I'm likely to delete both comments. But thanks for chiming in. I guess I should have said something at the time. I just hate even acknowledging his comments.
At least if he has more targets, we'll each get fewer arrows.
Lon
Posted by Jim Erhardt on September 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM
Well, here's a twist that may be worth considering;
Everyone remember Rich Mayer, the whack-job who we banned earlier in the year? A few months ago I got an email from Mayer stating that he's posting on NPN again via another person's account. Like all email from him, I read it, filed it and forgot about it.
Since Charlie seemed to be a buddy of Mayer, I'm wondering if this is what w're seeing. In any case, Charlie's posts in the thread Lon pointed out are unacceptable and I will send him an email immediately stating as much.
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 23, 2011 at 2:31 PM
Oh my... That does connect some of the dots.... I'd assume if you find out that if Charlie has provided Rich Mayer with his account info to NPN, that would be more than enough to just say goodbye forever.... What a pair if in fact that is really happening.
I agree, Hank. It looks like Charlie is stirring the pot with this one. He also stirred things up with his recent "Honesty" thread in General Discussion. He also made a couple of off-the-wall comments in my thread about PhotoPortfolios.
Yes, thanks Jim! I heartily agree with Hank's comment.
--P
Posted by Lon Overacker on December 10, 2011 at 7:59 PM
Yes, thanks Jim. You summarized many of my thoughts nicely. I had been contemplating for a while about chiming in and so maybe it's a good thing the thread has been closed to new comments. My history with Charlie is such that I think my comments would help anything no matter how diplomatic I am.
I think there is an underlying complaint from Charlie that I think was completely missed in the "honest" thread. Most responses have to do with the simple question of honest critiques. Seemed obvious. However, the underlying thing I think he's driving at is: Why do people like "Lon Overacker (my presumption)" get sappy, non-critical comments and get a free pass from critical comments? Remember it "sickens" him when folks post sappy comments. Why does Marc Adamus always seem to get 50 or more comments and members on either side of his post get 5? It's NOT FAIR - is what he's saying. Additionally, those in "management" and the "privileged" circles just pat each other on the back and don't offer "honest" critiques for those special people.
IMHO, this is simply your classic haves vs. have nots. Equality of results, not equal opportunity. Don't mean to inject politics here, but this is classic. I'm only speculating, but I believe he actually "hates" to see me and I'm sure many other "popular" members receive beer mugs and sappy comments. It just gets under his skin.
In the end, I'm just more inclined to say nothing with regards to Charlie and the questions he raises. The downside is, that my silence could also be seen by the general population as non-caring or uninvolved. It's a tough spot.
Did anyone see his post today? Either he or Jim deleted after a short visility in the General forum. It was titled, "May I respond?" I wish I had copied his comments in his question. Classic Charlie.
Discussion
19 repliesFirst he posts the "Lon Overacker is a purist and I am glad", http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=65992&CGISESSID=38923344b12b15541674e2945445021e&u=19322 but continues to complain he did not understand why his "landscape" (with obvious hand of man) was moved to M&N by Lon. Another poster says they won't post in M&N because it is second rate. So, I innocently post "I think more people should visit, comment, and post in M&N. The gallery is far from second rate and it is a real shame a lot of people on NPN have that perception" (which was a mistake on my part since it lead to the thread below).
Then Charlie posts http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=66036&CGISESSID=38923344b12b15541674e2945445021e&u=17237 continuing to complain why his post was moved to M&N then taking something I posted on in his first post out of context. I personally will not comment on any of Charlie's forum posts again. Am I right or wrong in doing this?
The other question I have is the 25% Hand of Man rule. I received and email from Barbara G asking why there are images in M&N that are more than 25% hand of man, and should they be removed? She did not understand why they were there....... or is this discretionary decision of the moderators? Just curious since I am relatively new as a moderator.
BTW, IMO - Charlie likes to create controversy.
Jim: Have you had any more conversations with Charlie via e-mail? I think he needs to be told that his behaviors are pushing the limits and he can either play by the rules or be asked to leave.
But I have a low tolerance for such stuff, and have been keeping my yap shut. Seems like no matter what is said, the situation escalates.
Eva, the guideline for 25% in M&N was set because we were seeing images with little 'nature' in them. Personally, I would not remove an image that doesn't meet the M&N guideline, but I would make a comment to the poster that the image is 'out of bounds', and restate the guideline.
--P
Preston, with regards to the 25% guideline, if a post clearly contains nothing natural (inside a barn, street scene), both I and I believe Kah Kit (since I asked him about this a while ago) will either comment on the post or send an email to the poster. I believe Barbara's question was related to Charlie's "Lon post" and his follow up post on M&N. where she asked me about the 25% guideline on the post and then sent an email to me also. The more I think about, his post of 95% chain with a tiny leaf was also pushing the limit on M&N.
Yes, I believe Charlie needs to be handled as a "troubled member." Not sure what the exact diffinition of that it is, but it seems to fit Charlie. I notice his posts in general discussion but not always in other forums, so please email me if you spot more "trouble from Charlie." :-/
So this is the only post I'll make with regard to Charlie, unless I'm asking that he be banned. If he posts in the general discussion that he can't post his favorite images on flora because we won't allow flash, or that we have too few lens baby images or not enough images of daisies or that one or both of the moderators is ignoring him, I won't be responding to him. As has already been mentioned above, there's no rational basis there for a dialog. I will continue to comment on his images and respond civilly to questions concerning photography so long as he conducts himself civilly in my areas of responsibility.
There are too many interesting and worthwhile things to do on this site besides satisfy Charlies' need for emotional engagement.
pat
I purposefully laid low in those threads mainly because I didn't want to feed the flames. Lots I could say and I'm like any other person, I could easily be just as combative as the next person. The one comment I actually took offense to was Robert Potts in the "Man and Nature deserve more respect" thread. where he wrote:
"Be nice to Charlie. He may be onto something. Would the Flora gallery kick something into the macro gallery or vice versa? Perhaps the "Big Cheese" gallery is a bit too full of itself. I am not an expert, but it seems like these galleries take on a personallity of their own. "
That was rather inflammatory I thought.
Aside from that, I've been watching Charlie too and actually his recent posting and comments have been pretty normal. He's been leaving good, constructive comments on images and not really stirring things up.
From what has been said and disclosed from before, I simply think this is a matter of age and the associated things that happen to me. I see it in my father and my wife's mother. for some reason we just get angrier as we get older and things like dementia come in to play.
Nothing much we can do other than to monitor and deal with things as they come. I'm guessing he will continue to swing back and forth. Hopefully not the extent where he leaves or gets kicked off.
Lon
Ok, so now he's getting on my nerves. Almost forgot this little jewel he posted in my latest post in Landscape:
grrrrr
At least if he has more targets, we'll each get fewer arrows.
Lon
Everyone remember Rich Mayer, the whack-job who we banned earlier in the year? A few months ago I got an email from Mayer stating that he's posting on NPN again via another person's account. Like all email from him, I read it, filed it and forgot about it.
Since Charlie seemed to be a buddy of Mayer, I'm wondering if this is what w're seeing. In any case, Charlie's posts in the thread Lon pointed out are unacceptable and I will send him an email immediately stating as much.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=67764&CGISESSID=cd100c3aee58af1672d30605ee5f8c6b&u=6186
--P
--P
I think there is an underlying complaint from Charlie that I think was completely missed in the "honest" thread. Most responses have to do with the simple question of honest critiques. Seemed obvious. However, the underlying thing I think he's driving at is: Why do people like "Lon Overacker (my presumption)" get sappy, non-critical comments and get a free pass from critical comments? Remember it "sickens" him when folks post sappy comments. Why does Marc Adamus always seem to get 50 or more comments and members on either side of his post get 5? It's NOT FAIR - is what he's saying. Additionally, those in "management" and the "privileged" circles just pat each other on the back and don't offer "honest" critiques for those special people.
IMHO, this is simply your classic haves vs. have nots. Equality of results, not equal opportunity. Don't mean to inject politics here, but this is classic. I'm only speculating, but I believe he actually "hates" to see me and I'm sure many other "popular" members receive beer mugs and sappy comments. It just gets under his skin.
In the end, I'm just more inclined to say nothing with regards to Charlie and the questions he raises. The downside is, that my silence could also be seen by the general population as non-caring or uninvolved. It's a tough spot.
Did anyone see his post today? Either he or Jim deleted after a short visility in the General forum. It was titled, "May I respond?" I wish I had copied his comments in his question. Classic Charlie.
Anyway, enough of this as I tend to ramble. sorry
Lon