I was banned from Photography unfairly by Calina.

Shinjuku

If somebody checks my last post you will see the post I was banned for. I was just replying to Paddy@IRL's rude post. I was still on topic mind you, it's not as if I started talking about the war in Iraq or anything.

gandalf

You posted tripe after a warning was issued by a mod. Totally justified ban.

Calina

Shinjuku,

There were 3 inline warnings in that thread which has had 26 posts removed from it in less than 12 hours.

You may feel hard done by but the post directly above yours specified that there would be bans if there were any more off topic posts. Yours was off topic and so you got banned.

The topic was "I need a wedding photographer" not the semantics of another poster's post. You were not on topic.

AnimalRights

I would also like to complain about Calina's infraction she gave me in the same thread, I was posting on topic, the guy who started all the trouble Paddy in reply #6 didn't even get an infraction!
Think 4 of us got infractions and 1 ban.

CabanSail

You walked into a very troubled thread and completely ignored the direction of the Mod. While you were not one of the crowd who had been derailing the thread, you continued to do so when there was a warning that bans will be given. If Calina had let that go then it would have undermined her warnings & been a red flag to the others. Some would then complain that Calina was only picking them out.

Very bad timing on your behalf. The ban is justified in my opinion.

gandalf

Good you deserved it as well. Paddy made a recommendation of a well established and respected photographer on the forum and you and the others got their knickers in a twist over it for god knows what reason, jealousy, being malicious who knows.

By the way don't bother pm'ing me again about my responses here or on any of the other forums.

Calina

All the infractions and the ban were for disregarding inthread warnings for dragging the thread off topic. As for the post you're whinging about, it's the subject of mod consideration right now - I don't think it's a big problem but as of this point in time, none of you had bothered to report it so obviously you thought it was better to have a flame war about it rather than report it. In which case I think the infractions were probably merited.

Remember, I deleted 11 posts from that thread at 8.20 this morning when I issued the first warning and 16 or 17 posts from it at around 5.30 when I got in this evening. The thread has almost more inthread warnings than actual posts now.

AnimalRights

gandalf wrote: »

Good you deserved it as well. Paddy made a recommendation of a well established and respected photographer on the forum and you and the others got their knickers in a twist over it for god knows what reason, jealousy, being malicious who knows.

By the way don't bother pm'ing me again about my responses here or on any of the other forums.

Pure rubbish.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fajitas! View Post
Why?

No more so that you recommending someone you know. Paddy knows my work, what's the problem. Tbh, your reaction to the whole thread (including the posts removed last night) are a hell of a lot more immature and embarassing than anything Paddy has posted here.

I replied with this

"From my POV what Paddy did was on one hand slag off a couple of people who rightfully replied to OP's original request and then he goes and does exactly what he was slagging off (recommending you), that couldn't be any clearer surely lol? "

It's ok for paddy to accuse people of pimping themselves but its ok for him to pimp someone else...consistency???
And then Gandalf as usual takes the Mods side.


and reason why I pm'd you mister high and mighty is because if I wanted to reply with what I wanted to your replies here I would be banned.

gandalf

It was obvious that Paddy's response was directed at a user with 4 posts whose only purpose replying to that thread was to whore his business. Instead you and others used this again predictably as a means to attack the moderators on that forum.

Shinjuku

gandalf wrote: »

Good you deserved it as well.

By the way don't bother pm'ing me again about my responses here or on any of the other forums.

Ah I don't think I deserved it. Paddys post was very cheeky and the mods didn't even bat an eye. He accused anybody offering their photographic skills as being whores. Then he goes and offers up somebody elses skills. just seemed a bit silly and rude.

And by the way I never pm'd you what are you talking about.

Calina

Sigh.

Feedback Mods, I'm prepared to see this moved to Helpdesk but my position on it is very simple.

The ban was for ignoring a second inthread warning, right above the OP's post in the thread where it was clearly stated that off topic posting would result in a ban.

The infractions brought up by a subsequent post were for posters ignoring the first inthread warning.

The thread was closed after a third inthread warning.

AnimalRights

My quoting needs brushing up so I'll start again.

OP asked for a photographer to perhaps cover his wedding.
2-3 people replied.
Paddy replied that people were pimping themselves and then he pimps his Fajitas.
4 infractions and 1 ban later Paddy is not amongst them.
Now if there is nothing wrong with the above I shall take a voluntary 7 day ban.

Calina

Shinjuku wrote: »

Ah I don't think I deserved it. Paddys post was very cheeky and the mods didn't even bat an eye. He accused anybody offering their photographic skills as being whores. Then he goes and offers up somebody elses skills. just seemed a bit silly and rude.

And by the way I never pm'd you what are you talking about.

You might want to read the whole thread. You're not the only person whinging about me now.

However, personally speaking, your post came immediately after a mod warning that people who derailed the thread would be banned.

AnimalRights

gandalf wrote: »

It was obvious that Paddy's response was directed at a user with 4 posts whose only purpose replying to that thread was to whore his business. Instead you and others used this again predictably as a means to attack the moderators on that forum.

aahh you'll talk to me here but not PM, he used the plural not singular.

I never attacked Calina in that thread.
I did dispute her infraction on feedback which I think is the correct place...maybe helpdesk.

gandalf

Shinjuku wrote: »

Ah I don't think I deserved it. Paddys post was very cheeky and the mods didn't even bat an eye. He accused anybody offering their photographic skills as being whores. Then he goes and offers up somebody elses skills. just seemed a bit silly and rude.

And by the way I never pm'd you what are you talking about.

You posted after a CLEAR warning issued by one of the mods what the hell did you think was going to happen.

It was clear to me that Paddy was referring to the user with 4 posts whoring their business.

The pm comment was directed at Animalrights.

Calina

AnimalRights wrote: »

My quoting needs brushing up so I'll start again.

OP asked for a photographer to perhaps cover his wedding.
2-3 people replied.
Paddy replied that people were pimping themselves and then he pimps his Fajitas.
4 infractions and 1 ban later Paddy is not amongst them.
Now if there is nothing wrong with the above I shall take a voluntary 7 day ban.

Please don't forget three inline warnings and 26 post deletions while you are summarising. I think it's relevant for the powers that be. Oh and none of the reported posts that I got related to Paddy's post.

AnimalRights

Calina wrote: »

Please don't forget three inline warnings and 26 post deletions while you are summarising. I think it's relevant for the powers that be. Oh and none of the reported posts that I got related to Paddy's post.

The simple facts are Paddy slagged of people for whoring themselves and in the same paragraph pimped Fajitas.

Hilarious really.

Calina

Yes but he slagged no one in particular while you ignored a mod direction after the fact.

I fail to see why you all got so excited about this at 2am this morning that between the lot of you you created 26 or 27 posts for me to have to delete.

Ricky91t

The photography forum:The most over moderated forum on boards

gandalf

AnimalRights wrote: »

The simple facts are Paddy slagged of people for whoring themselves and in the same paragraph pimped Fajitas.

Hilarious really.

My god if it was such an issue for you then I am sure you reported it? Oh no you didn't. I suppose you only decided it was an issue because you got infracted. Pathetic really.

AnimalRights

I don't report posts, maybe 1* in 10 years of forum use.

and that was after advice.

Pathetic is your abuse directed at me knowing if I reply I'll be banned, you never got over me and you getting banned together did you.

Calina

Is there any chance that you could all take a deep breath and listen to the beauty of nature whacking the outside of your houses instead of firing internet grenades at each other?

AnimalRights

Calina wrote: »

Yes but he slagged no one in particular while you ignored a mod direction after the fact.

I fail to see why you all got so excited about this at 2am this morning that between the lot of you you created 26 or 27 posts for me to have to delete.

But Paddy was contradicting himself, there has to be consistency surely?
(I replied originally to Paddy before a Mod was involved btw)...as for the late 4 way people posting it was more of a late night jovial bit of banter, I never complained about you deleting said posts.

challengemaster

Well, seeing as this matter has been brought up

AnimalRights wrote: »

The simple facts are Paddy slagged of people for whoring themselves and in the same paragraph pimped Fajitas.

Hilarious really.

Y'know I actually explained this lastnight, except that post got deleted and I got infracted for a simple explaination of what was meant too. Pure tripe tbh.

And actually, here's exactly what I posted.

My original post wrote:

Lol. Point went completely over your heads. Basic understanding of english here.

Paddy's point, Was that instead of everyone being in for themself and pimping themself

eg.

Fajitas: I'm fajitas, pick me
AR: I'm AR, Pick me
Dodgykeeper: I'm dodgykeeper, pick me

That recommendations are given by others. If someone on the forum knows a good photographer, like Paddy knows Al's work, he recommended it. NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

I really can't see the logic for getting infracted for that. Paddy posts, someone misunderstands, I explain....= infraction

Ricky91t wrote: »

The photography forum:The most over moderated forum on boards

+1

Calina

Ah yeah, but the infractions were, sigh, issued for posts after the first inthread warning. Infractions resulted from ignoring mod warning. Ignoring mod warning on boards.ie is not particularly well thought of.

What will it take for you to understand this?

AnimalRights

Originally Posted by CM
" Point went completely over your heads. Basic understanding of english here.

Paddy's point, Was that instead of everyone being in for themself and pimping themself

eg.

Fajitas: I'm fajitas, pick me
AR: I'm AR, Pick me
Dodgykeeper: I'm dodgykeeper, pick me

That recommendations are given by others. If someone on the forum knows a good photographer, like Paddy knows Al's work, he recommended it. NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND."


No you missed the point, the point is no matter how good Fajitas is for Paddy to slag off people for replying to what the OP asked for and then pimp his m8 is contradictory.

gandalf

AnimalRights wrote: »

I don't report posts, maybe 1* in 10 years of forum use.

and that was after advice.

Well if you take issue with a post then you will get further if you report it. No one report Paddy's post. Plenty of others were reported from that thread though.

Pathetic is your abuse directed at me knowing if I reply I'll be banned, you never got over me and you getting banned together did you.

My god I thought you were a tough old punk rocker, thats not abuse at all I'm sure you have heard far worse than that on a night out.

As for me having it in for you because of the banning. I already stated publically that I had no problems with the ban I deserved it, the fact I was banned with you didn't register or mean anything at all.

Gordon

Justified ban. Looks like Photography may be experiencing the Webhosting Forum effect. It might be an idea to reconsider any form of recommendations for photographers if the photographers act like kids with bees in their proverbial twisted knickers.

challengemaster

Well lets see.

Paddy's post was made before the warnings and left untouched. I assume then it's on topic.
The misinterpretations were after the warnings. Seemed like a valid mistake to mis-read what someone was saying. These were there after a mod warning in thread, and not having access to moderation logs of threads, I had no idea what had/hadn't been touched when I was reading it.
I posted an explaination, assuming that I was on topic.

To me, that all seems perfectly on topic.


AnimalRights: you just completly missed the point, again. /facepalm

randylonghorn

Jeez, what has happened to the Photography forum these days?

Admittedly, I'm not really a poster there, but I am a fairly regular lurker, and have been for ages.

I always found it a very enjoyable and helpful forum, some excellent pics, some very helpful posters, and a nice atmosphere with a bit of friendly banter to oil the wheels ... and that's not to even mention the terrific project which is the Photography book.

Recently, though, there's way too much sniping and angst. There's about 6 - 8 people need to take a step back and count to 100 100,000.

It's a photography forum, not a big swinging mickey forum. I'm sure there are other places you can boast about the size of your "lens". *



* Comment is metaphorical, rather than gender-specific.

Calina

Gordon wrote: »

Justified ban. Looks like Photography may be experiencing the Webhosting Forum effect. It might be an idea to reconsider any form of recommendations for photographers if the photographers act like kids with bees in their proverbial twisted knickers.

Yep. It's up for discussion with the mods at the moment as it happens and there will be some changes to how people looking for photography services will be allowed to do it in the very near future.