View Full Version : Dicuss Moderation of "Digital Manipulation...No No"

2007-11-19, 01:25 AM
It's great how you asked one of the admins to delete this thread after we posted our original replies. Tommy it shows your lack of professionalism, there is no need to expose this on the forum. If you had some culture in you, you would've taken this one on one. I don't care to see your dirty laundry here. Since you exposed someone, I will expose you and the admins. Tommy you're ego just surpassed the line of decency. If you have an honor you should apologize and the admins should do so as well.

The thread down below, "Digital Manipulation... No No" was deleted upon request. Once again recalling an old thread in which Phil D. wrote:

Phild D.

"If you feel we are not moderating the site properly, link me to examples. That's all it takes.

In debates here and with yourself and (very few) others in the past, it's been implied that I am a liar or that I'm deceitful towards or misleading people or members. It's also been hinted at that I "cover up" posts or have some back-end allegiance. Yet when I say and ask these direct questions, they never get addressed and neither of you have the balls to flat out accuse me, but only to make vague, silly, unfounded and most importantly, unsupported remarks."

I would like to ask for those who are responsible to step forward and take responsibility.

Well here's your example.


2007-11-19, 01:28 AM
Jakub the batmobile is too funny. I almost pissed myself.

On a more serious note I hope [name removed] learned a lesson here. IMO I don't believe any manipulation should be allowed when it comes to editing a photo. (Poles included) :wink: I think dustpots are one thing since we really can't control them on our sensor but after that if you clone or manipulate your cheating.

2007-11-19, 01:33 AM
WOAHHH! Hahahaha, wow. Well, I'd say this is a rather bold way to get a CLEAR message across to the 500+ active members of this site...that is, IF this thread is not deleted by any moderators after my post....

Hmm.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

- jMay

Matt Molnar
2007-11-19, 01:41 AM
For the record, Tommy did not ask for the thread to be deleted. I did so on my own. In hindsight it was not the right course of action I should have only deleted Jakub's orginal nonsense posts so I encouraged Tommy to repost the original thread.

2007-11-19, 01:50 AM
I didn't create this thread a mod moved my replies from the original . Tommy's thread stands independent so he could get the support. Comes to show you that they will do anything to protect the image of the fraternity.

Matt Molnar
2007-11-19, 01:52 AM
Yeah, we just had a big secret party at the NYCA frat house, sorry you weren't invited.

But seriously: what are you talking about?

2007-11-19, 01:55 AM
Jakub a few questions for you?

1. Why do you even bother responding to JP.net related posts? You don't upload to the site so why concern yourself with its operation?

2. How do you know the photog in question wasn't contacted well before my post?

3. Why are you so defensive about manipulating photos?

2007-11-19, 07:54 AM
Why do you even bother responding to JP.net related posts? You don't upload to the site so why concern yourself with its operation?

Tommy what does where you upload have anything to do with this? Making a conscious decision to alter your pics effects everyone who takes pictures of planes and uploads them to any site. Screeners and photogs alike. You seem to want to use this incident to bring more attention to yourself as a screener. I find it a bit pompous that you feel that anyone that doesn't upload to JP has no right to voice their opinion. I think that is a bit narrow minded. If you feel Jakub's comments are off topic, flamebait then call the mods and have them deleted but to try to create a caste system of photogs by where they upload and what thread they can participate in is a bit much.

How do you know the photog in question wasn't contacted well before my post?

We all know he probably was contacted long before you posted your thread. As I told you I felt posting that thread was wrong. For starters you seemed to only post that thread to bring more attention to yourself as a screener for JP. Secondly if you were sincere in posting it as anti manipulating premise you should have not identlfied him as a local here. It would have just caused a frenzy of people pointing fingers and assumptions about who it was. If you want to create a Scarlet letter I feel the photog should have been asked first. I mean as bad as what he did was I still feel he is entitled to confidentialality. Now I am not aware if you have contacted [name removed] and asked him before you exposed him to the entire NY community not to mention anyone else who lurks here but looking at this as a whole I feel it was a waste of time and horribly embarassing for [name removed],His actions were poor and irresponsible but I feel he deserved a little better.

2007-11-19, 08:46 AM
Rats! What was intended to be decisive pro-JP action was foiled! I was ready to cater the secret society's upcoming meeting (every 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month) to celebrate the new points for our side! :lol:

In all seriousness, thank you for sharing your concerns, Jakub. A little overly dramatic, but thank you.

In all honesty, when I first read the posts by Jakub and Josh, I laughed. I laughed hard. But unfortunately, the joke posts ended up taking the thread completley off topic, and needed to be deleted to bring the topic back on-topic. Joke posts are fine, but once they exceed two, it hijacks the thread. This has been a rule since day one. The posts' deletion should be taken with the same light heart that the posts were made to be psoted to begin with.

Ever see a parent or boss amused by a child that's making a mess with food, but it's cute, with a "haha, ok, ok. IT's funny, but let's clean this up." That's what this is.

At Matt explained, full thread deletion might not have been the best course of action. The way I see it, the individual posts should have been deleted, which is why the thread is back.

Every thread-starter, has a right to have his/her topic stay on-topic as they please, within reason. This includes posts about JP, Anet, or about someone who is extremely upset that the carton of eggs they brought home from the market had 7 broken ones.

I'm responding here to the moderating aspect of the thread in question. As for the JP-side of the discussion, I couldn't care less. I saw Tommy's post not as an official JP statement, but one of our friends and members who wanted to vent and show concern for the community/friends that we have here that upload to JP. The same action would have been taken if it were about Anet, or the guy with the eggs again. That part is such a non-issue to me.

If you want to accuse members of creating "caste systems" on photo database sites, it has nothing to do with NYCA, so take that to PM. I have more personal opinions on that, but again, if I feel so desired to voice them, that's for a more private venue, and I'll PM you.

2007-11-19, 04:00 PM
This has gotten out of hand. Very sad. I am locking this.

2007-11-19, 08:39 PM
I would like to say that the mentioning of the photographer's name occurred not because of Tommy, but from a miscommunication between him and NYCA staff in between the deletion and reposting of the thread in question.

I've spoken with that photographer and apologized, as i do to all of you.

2007-11-19, 09:35 PM
I, personally, stand behind the NYCA staff 100% here. There is no reason to take the thread off topic, and moving/deleting those posts were the appropriate course of action.

Regarding the post, I think Tommy shared a legitimate concern, I didn't see any problem with it. I guess it just provided a chance for the anti-NYCA people to start flaming... Seriously, I don't understand why you guys complain day in and day out about NYCA but still post here....

2007-11-19, 10:17 PM
Thank you for your thoughts and feedback.

I think my last reply unlocked the thread, so I'm going to lock it up again.

If anyone has any questions still, please PM or email me.

2007-11-19, 10:52 PM
Phil, it's still not locked just so you know