TXPhotog wrote:
However, Chris has mentioned putting in the ability to have negative comments of some undefined form allowed later.  Enter the potential for a cesspool.

The keyword here being "undefined." I've deliberately not mentioned how that might work for this very reason: there cannot be anything other than an unfounded claim of cesspool-ability. And those who make those claims are guessing, at best.

There's a reason that this phase has been a "if you have nothing nice to say, you can't say anything" methodology, and that reason is grounded in the reality that previous attempts at systems like this did, indeed, devolve.

I would have hoped that someone with Doug's experience and intelligence would have seen this. Apparently not.

So be it. I expected someone to take this stance and make these threats, actually, though, to be honest, had anyone asked, I would have never thought it would have been Doug.

Doug, if you want to discuss the matter with me, feel free. If you'd like to do it in public, or in private, that's your choice as well. I'll even give you my phone number if you'd like to chat on the phone. But please understand that I feel your claim of legal standing to be meritless, and if if action were brought against me, I would defend myself vigorously.

Jim Ball wrote:

Duh, if I understand correctly, you are not a member of that site.  Are you a member of Deviant Art?  I am, and could post something complimenting you there.  Do you expect every site on the internet to bow down and obey your wishes if someone posts something about you on a site you do not like?

I see Dougs point....and I think some of you might be missing it as well.

I know you are all free to post on your MM profile that I could be the worlds biggest asshole or that I could be the worlds best photographer, or you could post that on your MySpace page or on your website or wherever you want to post it. Or that models could post that as well. That is their right to do that.

But I think the point Doug is trying to make is that when I signed up for MM, and read their "rules", very basic and yet very vague "rules", No where did it say that a outside ranking system would be associated and directly tied into MM and would be able to access it database. Which in turn means I would be buying into and/or agreeing with the use of the ranking site.

Now when I sign up on E-bay, I know there is a ranking system already in place and agree to that when I sign up. But Model Mayhem never had one in place when we signed up. Now if this rating system is being endorsed by Model Mayhem, I think it would be in their best interest to send out a message to every member stating that they are going to implement a rating system that is tied into the MM database and if people do not want to be associated they can opt out of the ranking system or can leave the site if they wish.

I for one myself do not believe in rating systems or black list sites. And I do not agree with the implementation of this one either.

But hey....we are all entitled to our own opinions, right!

Doug Swinskey wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i agreed to be on mayhem..i didnt agree to be on chris's site...

do you fight for yourself or do you just do what you are told?

it the potential abuse.....thats what i am concerned with...thats what you are all missing...

i am also concerned with peole thinking i endorse the site

you wont be concerned with it unitl someone points a finger at you...then you'll be wanting to sue someone..

I have recourse against any individual that libels me.  If they wrote the libelous statement on the sand at the beach, should I sue the ocean?

Icecold Images wrote:
But I think the point Doug is trying to make is that when I signed up for MM, and read their "rules", very basic and yet very vague "rules", No where did it say that a outside ranking system would be associated and directly tied into MM and would be able to access it database. Which in turn means I would be buying into and/or agreeing with the use of the ranking site.

I'm curious, what site are you talking about? ShootNotes does none of those things.

Clearly you're talking about some other site of which I'm not aware.

TXPhotog wrote:

I made a policy statement on this earlier in the thread.

I don't believe Chris has an ulterior motive either, and I don't believe Doug thinks he does.  Doug's concern (one I share) is that other people have done some pretty horrible things on websites whose purpose was not all that dissimilar to Chris' site.  Unlike Doug (whose reservations I can certainly understand), I'm willing to see if the site design and implementation overcome the natural tendency of such sites to be cesspools.

Roger,

I admire your work and think that most of the knowledge you impart here on Mm is usually dead on the head of the nail..

But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

King of the Letter L wrote:

I'm curious, what site are you talking about? ShootNotes does none of those things.

Clearly you're talking about some other site of which I'm not aware.

Maybe I'm wrong Chris, and I'm seriously not trying to sound like an ass, but doesn't your site say that it is a reputation system designed, initially, for users of Model Mayhem. And that your "LookUp" function uses MM# to find people.

I also thought I saw one of you replies where it stated something to the effect that, that bug or script correction would require my system to access MM's system twice, resulting in a possible slow down of MM's servers. I'll see if I can find that.

AndrewG wrote:

Roger,

I admire your work and think that most of the knowledge you impart here on Mm is usually dead on the head of the nail..

But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

There are already a couple of hundred members on Shootnotes.  Any (or all) of them, as well as any future members could vouch for Doug at any time.  Doug wants his own personal block.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

i agreed to be on mayhem..i didnt agree to be on chris's site...

And are you planning to pursue this with EVERY other site where you are not a member where someone mentions you?

On what grounds?

And what, in your opinion, gives you the right to limit others' freedom of speech or the venues in which they exercise is, assuming they don't cross the line in to illegality?

I'd REALLY like to hear the answer to this question 

Jim Ball wrote:

Duh, if I understand correctly, you are not a member of that site.  Are you a member of Deviant Art?  I am, and could post something complimenting you there.  Do you expect every site on the internet to bow down and obey your wishes if someone posts something about you on a site you do not like?

I've been asking that question & he's been dodging it

SLE Photography wrote:
I'd REALLY like to hear the answer to this question 

Me too, and I've asked it, but he skirts it.

AndrewG wrote:
But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

No, I wasn't.  Somehow I missed that part of the thread.

I've deleted the vouch.

Icecold Images wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong Chris, and I'm seriously not trying to sound like an ass, but doesn't your site say that it is a reputation system designed, initially, for users of Model Mayhem. And that your "LookUp" function uses MM# to find people.

I also thought I saw one of you replies where it stated something to the effect that, that bug or script correction would require my system to access MM's system twice, resulting in a possible slow down of MM's servers. I'll see if I can find that.

Google does the same thing ShootNotes does.

Icecold Images wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong Chris, and I'm seriously not trying to sound like an ass, but doesn't your site say that it is a reputation system designed, initially, for users of Model Mayhem. And that your "LookUp" function uses MM# to find people.

I also thought I saw one of you replies where it stated something to the effect that, that bug or script correction would require my system to access MM's system twice, resulting in a possible slow down of MM's servers. I'll see if I can find that.

Absolutely correct on all counts. My system does a load of a member's MM web page, just like you can do, right now, with your browser. ShootNotes does not use MM to "find" people, it uses a member's MM number to identify them. We do that all the time, you and I. Models often ask me my MM or OMP number so they can visit my profile. Nothing nefarious there.

It looks at the member's public profile, nothing more. No access to MM's database, no special functions (and, indeed, I asked and was politely told no). ShootNotes does nothing on MM's site that Google doesn't also do.

And, you'll see that it's initially designed for MM because that's where I like to play. It would (and will) also work for any web site where a user can add a graphic to their public profile. I just didn't want to have to code for a ton of sites all at the same time during a beta test.

So if you don't like that a site can look at a MM profile, you'd also want to gripe to Google, Ask.com, Altavista, Live.com and any other place you can search MM, look at cached copies of pages, etc.

I hope that's clear.

Feral Oneiric wrote:

Me too, and I've asked it, but he skirts it.

Doesnt look like he is gonna answer it now... He picked up his toys and went home....

Jim Ball wrote:

There are already a couple of hundred members on Shootnotes.  Any (or all) of them, as well as any future members could vouch for Doug at any time.  Doug wants his own personal block.

I understand what you are saying.. but this wouldnt have been even an issue if you hadnt vouched for him.. I know that someone else could have..

I think that if Doug had just asked for whoever had vouched for him would delete it.. it would have been a moot point. Once it was made public here in the MM forum.. it would probably have been best for him to just have asked you to delete it.. then again.. how did he know if he didnt go looking for it?

AndrewG wrote:
But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

TXPhotog wrote:
No, I wasn't.  Somehow I missed that part of the thread.

I've deleted the vouch.

well everyone.. Roger removed the "Vouch" that upset Doug.. so that should eliminate the argument for now.. so maybe ask someone before you vouch for them.. or maybe Chris can set it up to only allow "vouches" when it is for a member of shootnotes.

AndrewG wrote:

AndrewG wrote:
But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

well everyone.. Roger removed the "Vouch" that upset Doug.. so that should eliminate the argument for now.. so maybe ask someone before you vouch for them.. or maybe Chris can set it up to only allow "vouches" when it is for a member of shootnotes.

That may be key right there.  You have to be a member of shootnotes to exchange vouchers.

AndrewG wrote:

AndrewG wrote:
But.. are you aware that this entire issue with Doug.. is due to your "Vouching" for him?

(just asking...)

well everyone.. Roger removed the "Vouch" that upset Doug.. so that should eliminate the argument for now.. so maybe ask someone before you vouch for them.. or maybe Chris can set it up to only allow "vouches" when it is for a member of shootnotes.

I really don't think Chris needs to do anything.  One hissy fit is not a valid reason to rewrite code.  If he has legal standing, then he needs to stand his ground on the issue or he will be rewriting code every other day trying to keep everyone happy.

King of the Letter L wrote:

And, you'll see that it's initially designed for MM because that's where I like to play. It would (and will) also work for any web site where a user can add a graphic to their public profile. I just didn't want to have to code for a ton of sites all at the same time during a beta test.

I hope that's clear.

Yes Chris, thanks. And yes I can see that your ranking site would fit in or could be added to any site. The fact that you started it on MM I think might be the bone of contention. When I joined MM, it didn't have a ranking system, not that I'm worried about getting bad press, but I can see how they can be abused. And like Doug said, even if someones does "vouch" for him in a good way, its still associates his name with the ranking system, giving people the impression that he agrees with a ranking system.

I think Andrew G has the perfect answer below!!

AndrewG wrote:
well everyone.. Roger removed the "Vouch" that upset Doug.. so that should eliminate the argument for now.. so maybe ask someone before you vouch for them.. or maybe Chris can set it up to only allow "vouches" when it is for a member of shootnotes.

Doug is not upset that some one "vouched" for him in a good way, its that people now associate him with "agreeing to" or "buying into" a ranking system.

AndrewG has the best answer. Set it up so that only members of shootnotes can only rank other shootnote members.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Time will tell. And if it does, indeed, crash and burn, I'll be buying the drinks at the wake.

I can completely understand where a professional is coming from regarding your venture but MM is not a professional site and I like the idea of shootnotes.  You're right though, only time will tell.

Icecold Images wrote:
... even if someones does "vouch" for him in a good way, its still associates his name with the ranking system, giving people the impression that he agrees with a ranking system.

The county tax assessor publishes a web site that shows my house's address, how much they think it's worth, and how much I paid in taxes. It shows that I paid (or, if I didn't pay, that I didn't pay).

Does this web site give the impression that I agree with my county's use of my tax money, much less agree with the fact that I'm taxed?

Exact. Same. Thing. It in no way implies or outright states any kind of endorsement.

Alexa ranks web sites by usage, traffic and demographics. There is no opt-out mechanism. No endorsement of Alexa is ever presumed.

Honestly, that's a stretch.

That said, Doug has asked for a disclaimer and I have agreed. I, personally, feel that it's stating the obvious, but perhaps that opinion isn't obvious, and a disclaimer resolves his issue while not impacting mine.

Where I come from, we call that two adults compromising.

And should the day come that Doug and I find ourselves in the same city, I'll offer to stand him to dinner and drinks if he'd tolerate my pathetic company.

AndrewG wrote:
maybe Chris can set it up to only allow "vouches" when it is for a member of shootnotes.

I'm sure he could.  But that seems to me to vitiate a lot of the utility of the site.

1.  When I joined, I put in a lot of vouches for people I knew.  Most of them were not members.  If I had to cross-check to see if someone were a member before entering them into the system, I wouldn't have bothered.  It literally would have taken hours.  Not worth it for me.

2.  If I do a TFP shoot in the future, should I not be able to vouch for, or comment on the performance of someone who is not a shootnotes member?  If I can't, that takes away a lot of the utility of the system.  If they join three months after the shoot, I'm not about to go chasing them down to find out, and then go back and reconstruct shoot details that I couldn't put in before.

3.  Chris may be able to suppress visibility of information relating to vouching and shot with entries until a person is a member (that's probably not too hard), and it may solve Doug's concern.  But it also takes away utility.

TXPhotog wrote:
3.  Chris may be able to suppress visibility of information relating to vouching and shot with entries until a person is a member (that's probably not too hard), and it may solve Doug's concern.  But it also takes away utility.

Then it puts Chris in an awkward position considering the somewhat familiar relationship of the MM members.

King of the Letter L wrote:
And if it does, indeed, crash and burn, I'll be buying the drinks at the wake.

If you've ever opened a beer at a eulogy...you might be a redneck.

Jeff Foxworthy: Mama sure looks good, doesn't she?
Ron White: (looks closer) That ain't Mama!
Larry The Cable Guy: That's her, they just shaved her beard off...

George Lue wrote:
http://ratemyprofessors.com/index.jsp

Ranking system that any professor is subject to.  They have no say as to whether or not they are in it.  Both good and bad can be said.

Indeed. I (and my consultants) learned a lot of "how not to do it" lessons from that (and similar) sites.

George Lue wrote:
http://ratemyprofessors.com/index.jsp

Ranking system that any professor is subject to.  They have no say as to whether or not they are in it.  Both good and bad can be said.

Touche'

TXPhotog wrote:

No, I wasn't.  Somehow I missed that part of the thread.

I've deleted the vouch.

Several of us said he should just ask you & he said he wouldn't do that, he was holding Chris accountable for it & expects Chris to create a block for him so NO one can vouch for him or post a work-with.

SLE Photography wrote:

Several of us said he should just ask you & he said he wouldn't do that, he was holding Chris accountable for it & expects Chris to create a block for him so NO one can vouch for him or post a work-with.

I didn't think this was a thread I had to follow from beginning to end.  I just check in now and then to see how things are going in it.  My bad, I guess.

TXPhotog wrote:
I didn't think this was a thread I had to follow from beginning to end.  I just check in now and then to see how things are going in it.  My bad, I guess.

You don't dote on my every word?! I've never been so offended in my life!

King of the Letter L wrote:
You don't dote on my every word?! I've never been so offended in my life!

Stick around.  I can get pretty offensive. 



Or perhaps I'll subcontract it out to Bob Randall.

George Lue wrote:
By the way, Mr. Ambler:  Do you think those graphics might work?  Or a variation thereof?

Call me Mr. Ambler again, and... (we've been over that in another thread) :-)

I'll be getting to take a look later tonight. Right now, I'm addressing one blocking bug.

TXPhotog wrote:

Stick around.  I can get pretty offensive. 



Or perhaps I'll subcontract it out to Bob Randall.

Holy mother of god, point taken. How about we sell tickets to that? We can donate the proceeds to charity. The Bob Randall Home for Wayward Models.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Holy mother of god, point taken. How about we sell tickets to that? We can donate the proceeds to charity. The Bob Randall Home for Wayward Models.

I'll notify the maternity wards.