Quote: "Sorry Guys, this has been closed to prevent the subject becoming too political and too far removed from wildlife photography.
The Mods "
Philip/Mods, I am rather surprised that you would take such a drastic step. I am aware of the forum guidelines: quote
"Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-combative. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with the art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice."
Of course it's possible discussion of this topic could become 'political', but it's entirely possible that it might also generate some stimulating and insightful comment and debate from which people unaware of the many complexities that surround such issues could increase their knowledge. There exists a massive amount of knowledge and experience in this site's participants, and their insights regarding issues of this type are worth reading IMHO.
Might I respectfully suggest that you could at least have waited until your worst fears were realised and at that point stepped in as a moderator and drawn a clear line when it strayed too far from the topic? Or maybe you've actually done that and I did not notice? Were there any responding posts, and were they overtly political and that's whats triggered your response? I'd be really interested to know.
The discussion might have touched upon environmental photo-journalism issues and how we 'nature photographers' can play a part in broadening the debate by increasing people's understanding of the natural world through our honest portrayal of it in our images. Warts and all. We have the tools and skills to do this and to ignore this is to subscribe to the 'eco-porn' school of photography which promotes the myth of the natural world as some idyllic haven full of pretty stuff.
A recent thread I followed with interest on another site regarding an astonishing piece of footage of lions and buffalo elicited forum users comments about "the RSPCA should stop these animals killing each other" and that it was "faked by National Geographic". There's a woeful ignorance of what goes on in the natural world, and what some people do in the natural world. Thats where we have a role to play and if we ignore that reality we might as well give up now.
Philip - can I ask an important question: Does this mean that if I post an IMAGE of a poisoned golden eagle, or any other nature image that might be deemed to be 'controversial' or overtly 'political' either in its content or in the discussion it might provoke, that the Mods will censor it by deleting the post? I'm really interested to know.
Hello John
Whilst agreeing with your comments about the depth and breadth of wildlife knowledge amongst members of this site, I must point out that the site is here with the prime objective of wildlife photography and its critique.
There are numerous other sites where political debate can be undertaken.
With a few years experience of how these particular types of thread can develop, I thought it prudent to "Nip this in the bud". There had, in fact, been a couple of responses to the post.
An image of a poisoned eagle or any other controversial shot would not necessarily be censored, but the critique might be if it became overheated.
Best wishes
Phil
I appreciate your comments and I can understand your point of view. While we do generally try to allow some leeway with these sort of things on UKNP and NPN, it isn't really the site's main objective, and has led to some very petty mud slinging matches in the past. In these, people have started to get rather personal with their comments. Not everyone wants to read or wade their way around these topics - hence the reason why we try to steer away from them.
There are actually two forums on NPN specifically to try and address the problems surrounding these kinds of topics - Hot Topics and Environmental Photo-Journalism
Regarding your point about posting an image of a poisoned Eagle, if you wanted to post such a PJ image then there is no reason why you couldn't - with the proviso that any commentry you or anyone else added to it was factual, non-slanderous, non-libellous and non-hysterical. The 'tone' and direction that any subsequent comments took would determine how we reacted to the topic (in no particular order) - removing individual offending comments; closing it for a while to allow people to cool off; removing the entire topic or even asking indiviuduals to take a 'holiday' from the forum to cool-down!
UKNP is a site that has a very broad appeal - from simple photographers, to people who's jobs encompass the RSPB, Police, Government, Gamekeeping, Environmental Activism and so on.... we try to keep UKNP a reasonably neutral place for everyone to meet and enjoy the common element that they have - nature photography.
Elsewhere you've likened UKNP to 'kind of like an online hide but noisier'... unfortunately we sometimes have to ask folks to keep the noise down a bit . I like your description
Nick, Phil (& Tom) Thanks for the responses. Tom has discussed this with me in person and explained the situation. I was not aware that responses had been received and that the thread was closed after that, when it looked like the topic might become too politicized or controversial. Thats fine by me. I checked the 'replies' and the counter said only 1 so I thought it had been closed before any comments were made.
I appreciate what a difficult job it is to moderate a forum of this type and your desire to keep it's appeal broad. I am aware of the EPJ section but wasnt aware that the Hot Topics section was the unmoderated repository for controversial stuff.
SO it appears your worst fears were realized and you acted in response. Ooops! Fair dos.
I'm also not aware of the history of the site nor what troubles you've had in the past so I'll tread carefully in future as I tiptoe through the online hide!
Discussion
3 repliesThe Mods "
Philip/Mods, I am rather surprised that you would take such a drastic step. I am aware of the forum guidelines: quote
"Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-combative. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with the art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice."
Of course it's possible discussion of this topic could become 'political', but it's entirely possible that it might also generate some stimulating and insightful comment and debate from which people unaware of the many complexities that surround such issues could increase their knowledge. There exists a massive amount of knowledge and experience in this site's participants, and their insights regarding issues of this type are worth reading IMHO.
Might I respectfully suggest that you could at least have waited until your worst fears were realised and at that point stepped in as a moderator and drawn a clear line when it strayed too far from the topic? Or maybe you've actually done that and I did not notice? Were there any responding posts, and were they overtly political and that's whats triggered your response? I'd be really interested to know.
The discussion might have touched upon environmental photo-journalism issues and how we 'nature photographers' can play a part in broadening the debate by increasing people's understanding of the natural world through our honest portrayal of it in our images. Warts and all. We have the tools and skills to do this and to ignore this is to subscribe to the 'eco-porn' school of photography which promotes the myth of the natural world as some idyllic haven full of pretty stuff.
A recent thread I followed with interest on another site regarding an astonishing piece of footage of lions and buffalo elicited forum users comments about "the RSPCA should stop these animals killing each other" and that it was "faked by National Geographic". There's a woeful ignorance of what goes on in the natural world, and what some people do in the natural world. Thats where we have a role to play and if we ignore that reality we might as well give up now.
Philip - can I ask an important question: Does this mean that if I post an IMAGE of a poisoned golden eagle, or any other nature image that might be deemed to be 'controversial' or overtly 'political' either in its content or in the discussion it might provoke, that the Mods will censor it by deleting the post? I'm really interested to know.
Whilst agreeing with your comments about the depth and breadth of wildlife knowledge amongst members of this site, I must point out that the site is here with the prime objective of wildlife photography and its critique.
There are numerous other sites where political debate can be undertaken.
With a few years experience of how these particular types of thread can develop, I thought it prudent to "Nip this in the bud". There had, in fact, been a couple of responses to the post.
An image of a poisoned eagle or any other controversial shot would not necessarily be censored, but the critique might be if it became overheated.
Best wishes
Phil
I appreciate your comments and I can understand your point of view. While we do generally try to allow some leeway with these sort of things on UKNP and NPN, it isn't really the site's main objective, and has led to some very petty mud slinging matches in the past. In these, people have started to get rather personal with their comments. Not everyone wants to read or wade their way around these topics - hence the reason why we try to steer away from them.
There are actually two forums on NPN specifically to try and address the problems surrounding these kinds of topics - Hot Topics and Environmental Photo-Journalism
Regarding your point about posting an image of a poisoned Eagle, if you wanted to post such a PJ image then there is no reason why you couldn't - with the proviso that any commentry you or anyone else added to it was factual, non-slanderous, non-libellous and non-hysterical. The 'tone' and direction that any subsequent comments took would determine how we reacted to the topic (in no particular order) - removing individual offending comments; closing it for a while to allow people to cool off; removing the entire topic or even asking indiviuduals to take a 'holiday' from the forum to cool-down!
UKNP is a site that has a very broad appeal - from simple photographers, to people who's jobs encompass the RSPB, Police, Government, Gamekeeping, Environmental Activism and so on.... we try to keep UKNP a reasonably neutral place for everyone to meet and enjoy the common element that they have - nature photography.
Elsewhere you've likened UKNP to 'kind of like an online hide but noisier'... unfortunately we sometimes have to ask folks to keep the noise down a bit
Hope that answers a few of your questions
I appreciate what a difficult job it is to moderate a forum of this type and your desire to keep it's appeal broad. I am aware of the EPJ section but wasnt aware that the Hot Topics section was the unmoderated repository for controversial stuff.
SO it appears your worst fears were realized and you acted in response. Ooops! Fair dos.
I'm also not aware of the history of the site nor what troubles you've had in the past so I'll tread carefully in future as I tiptoe through the online hide!