Red Sky Photography wrote:
I, too, miss that thread. It was a good way to keep up with the factual numbers and there were several contributors who linked new articles relating to treatments and press releases from the CDC and other Government agencys.

Global Covid 19 Statistics updated several times a day published by Johns Hopkins University

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboar … 7b48e9ecf6
=========================================

United States COVID-19 Statistics with individual State info updated several times a day:

https://covidusa.net/
=========================================

COVID-19 Projections model from University of Washington (the one often quoted by the task force)---updated every few days

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-s … ;tab=trend
============================================

CDC Covid 19 Web page (Index of available information)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html

Focuspuller wrote:
Was it realistic to allow discussion of a public health crisis without allowing mention of the government response or debunking falsehoods used to justify it? Seriously?

QFT.

rfordphotos wrote:

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I, too, miss that thread. It was a good way to keep up with the factual numbers and there were several contributors who linked new articles relating to treatments and press releases from the CDC and other Government agencys.

Global Covid 19 Statistics updated several times a day published by Johns Hopkins University

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboar … 7b48e9ecf6
=========================================/quote]

Thanks for that, and all of your posts

OT Rules wrote:
No more serious debate threads
Threads of a serious nature like news, politics, religion, etc. are not permitted.  Continuing discussion of politics, religion, race, or other controversial topics in other forums may result in locked threads, hidden posts, and/or removal of forum privileges.

Whether useful or not, some mod(s) decided it was not following the rules. Rather than questioning the actions that follow the rules, consider questioning the rule. First, consider why the rule was put into place.

Eric212Grapher wrote:
...
First, consider why the rule was put into place.

Keep in mind that this was about an unexpected major pandemic, that was affecting all of us in a variety of different ways, with a very high death toll, where a large number of people didn't understand what they could personally do to help protect themselves and those around them.  On top of that, misinformation (that sometimes was anything but harmless) was common.

This was not even remotely close, to a normal situation.

So I'd suggest that while considering "why the rule was put into place", you might also want to consider why an exception was made during these unusual times.

I'll add my voice to those who have thanked the mods, for putting up with so many times when it clearly crossed the rules, but still allowed it to continue (while trying to keep it on track), specifically because of the extraordinary circumstances.

LightDreams wrote:
I was trying to figure out how you might be able to "reduce the politics" in such a situation, while keeping the useful information (not an easy task).

The only thing I can think of would be to only allow links to major, reputable sources (major news, medical and scientific organizations, but no editorial, columns or opinion pieces) combined with a brief summary of what that news / information is.  I.E.  Making it more likely to be useful "hard facts", while making it much more difficult to interject personal opinions.

Hindsight is always much easier...

The cultists would have a field day with "major, reputable sources (major news, medical and scientific organizations..)" as they do now, every day.

The basic problem is the ban on "politics" is accepted uncritically. Political engagement should be seen as a positive civic duty of all citizens in a functioning democracy, with the necessary requirement of civility. Banning political discussion is also unrealistic, and, we have seen, ultimately impossible. FWIW, I didn't think the discussion was particularly uncivil, despite the regurgitation of falsehoods some tried to disseminate.

Focuspuller wrote:
The cultists would have a field day with "major, reputable sources (major news, medical and scientific organizations..)" as they do now, every day.

The basic problem is the ban on "politics" is accepted uncritically. Political engagement should be seen as a positive civic duty of all citizens in a functioning democracy, with the necessary requirement of civility. Banning political discussion is also unrealistic, and, we have seen, ultimately impossible. FWIW, I didn't think the discussion was particularly uncivil, despite the regurgitation of falsehoods some tried to disseminate.

Interesting, and I don't disagree with you.

Whatever trade-offs MM made when these rules were originally implemented (reduced user engagement leading to fewer advertising "eyeballs", versus staying clear of controversy, presumably for advertiser rules and/or other reasons), at the end of the day those rules are out of our control.

My suggestion was made assuming that MM wasn't going to change their rules.  It was only an attempt at figuring out how members could help share important, useful information within the MM system.

I especially like the idea that the one rule is "being civil".  I'm not going to claim that rule was always followed though!

Joe Tomasone wrote:
I haven't looked at that particular thread to see what happened, but I'd bet the farm that it had devolved into a political discussion. 

As to why politics, religion and the like are not permitted?   Simple - members get heated, start personal attacks, and it devolves into a virtual fistfight.   That's the opposite of "community" - or, at the very least, that is the stance that we have taken based on the number of complaints generated from such threads. 

Discussions of things like the pandemic itself are fine - but if and when they devolve into the politics of the situation (such as here in the United States, where it can be a source of very heated debate), it begins to run afoul of the rules. 

If you have any questions about this, please post them here or in the "Site Related" forum - which is where this thread really belongs. 

Politics should be the responsibility of ALL citizens of a functioning democracy. ESPECIALLY now. Even MM cannot nullify that.The requirement should be civility. Violate that and be deleted. Other than that, let the discussions continue. My $.02.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
Well, the rule says:


Mostly hidden in that verbiage is the important context that it's controversial debates that MAY result in action being taken. 

Put another way - and as was put above - civility and context are key.    Opining on the responsibility of government to facilitate effective countermeasures to the spread of the virus is fine - arguing over whether politician or party A or B screwed it up or would do better, etc, is where the grey line starts and it ends when it devolves into attacks. 

We aren't the word police here, but we don't want threads to create problems. 

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

With all due respect, not clear.  "Threads of a serious nature..." are not permitted? So only trivial subjects are allowed in "Off-Topic"? Isn't government response to a national crisis serious? But OK as long as no one is criticized? Huh? Shouldn't civility and no ad hominem attacks be the only rules?

Joe Tomasone wrote:

Fair question.   I didn't write that rule, and likely would have worded it differently to be more in line with what we both have said.   

Politics, religion, and other controversial topics have generated significant problems in the past, and therefore the rule should really be more of a warning that we do not want threads that will assuredly get out of control - someone trolling an abortion debate with some inflammatory comment, for example, or starting a "Why Donald Trump Sucks" or "Why Joe Biden Sucks" kind of thread.   It's not meant to apply to legitimate discussion that stays civil - the problem is that civil discussions on those topics have a way of getting uncivil without much warning, and thus the rule notes what may happen. 

But your point is valid, and I'll talk with the other mods about perhaps rewording the rule to be more clear.

🙏

Joe Tomasone wrote:

The last post to a thread in the "Off topic" section was to this thread, 6 hours 11 minutes ago.  The last post in General Industry was 22 hours ago.  That isn't much of an indication that people are staying tuned to this station.

The slow pace of the forums should be an indication that something is wrong.  If the site develops revenue from people logging in, then it appears that the forums are not motivation for people to log in and see advertising.

"...  it's controversial debates that MAY result in action being taken."

We can have a discussion about a non-controversial topic but that is not a debate.   We can all express much the same opinion in a thread, reinforcing our pleasure, disdain or whatever for something said above us, but that is not a debate.  A debate requires some level of controversy.  It can be an amicable discussion and debate and mature people can follow the rules and self regulate, but avoiding all controversy has killed the forums and I believe that has impacted other areas of the site.

I believe you are correct that rule needs to be rewritten, but they also needs to be loosened, better defined and better enforced.  In the thread that this one is discussing, some posters made strong political statements, sometimes off the topic of the thread.  Those posts sometimes drew further political discussion.  We can ignore the first one, maybe the second, but as it continues there is going to be increased responses that also violate the rules as written.  That makes it very difficult for us to determine what is in bounds and what is out of bounds.  One post that made an outrageous generalization declaring one party good and one party bad, regarding a political topic that was irrelevant and the claim was easily debatable, had to be left unanswered, though I wrote no less than 6 replies and resisted hitting send each time.  It isn't worth it to lose my privileges for some post, but trust me, ignoring that comment doesn't make the conversation more civil.  At some point, I am going to find a way within the rules, I hope, to express my sentiments regarding the out of bound, inflammatory and trolling posts.  I am not sure I can claim that those post are always civil and light hearted expressions.  Ultimately, the tone of the conversation does depend on the moderators.

I strongly appreciate that the mods let that thread continue for 60 pages.  It was walking a tight rope but it was informative and thought provoking, even if it was argumentative.  Both sides got to dispute what was considered false information, even though only one side wasn't providing false information.    But it was the thread that was the main guide, along with the occasional admonition and warning from a mod that gave us the guidelines as to what was permissible and what was not.  The sudden disappearance of the thread left us, if  can speak for others, scratching our heads.

I appreciate your willingness to revisit the post-soapbox rules.  I hope that you find a way to loosen the restrictions and allow us to have sometimes boisterous debates as long as they avoid the personal attacks and unrestrained posting of political absolutes that are subjective, generalizing, and/or soothsaying t best. 

... we don't want threads to create problems."  Neither do we.  I don't particularity want to have soapbox style discussions, though even those were better behaved than what I see in the Washington Post comments section.  But it would be nice to get to know people around the country and around the world as they freely tell us things about their regions and events that affect our world.  I would like to be able to know why, in rational terms, some people support a particular politician or policy.  Without rational discussion we are more likely to be forced to opposing corners where we can take little shots because little shots are less likely to draw punishment than reasoned discussion.  And that is a very negative circumstance if we want civility.

MoRina wrote:
The problem with talking about politics on this site is that you have a group of people who just want to hear themselves talk. They aren't here as open-minded creatives looking for photography knowledge, models or artistic collaboration. They aren't here to help new or younger photographers and models learn. They are here because they can feel like big fish in a small pond. There aren't many people contributing to these forums because these know-it-alls run everyone off. They spread negativity through every forum and almost every thread. Because many members no longer contribute to the forums, they get their egos fed by continuing to post their opinions over and over again. As they are allowed to continued to post, it emboldens them and spills over into non-political threads. They are like vultures attacking anyone who asks a question they've seen before or one they deem stupid. They are condescending and enjoy shutting down discussions.
So the issue shouldn't be about allowing politics. It should be about creating and maintaining a welcoming, positive community that is allowed to change and grow as members who are no longer involved in the model photography world to step aside and find other venues to talk about politics. There are thousands of those places. Please stop letting it infect what was and could be a positive place for creatives to find each other and learn and grow.

I agree with your comments.

LightDreams wrote:
While it's such an important issue (life and death, for many), who knew it could become so politicized.   We ended up in a strange "no win" situation as far as the forum thread went.

If you hid the issue, or downplayed it,  that act, strangely enough, became a political stance.  If you brought attention to the issue, that particular act, in itself, also became political.  Which is completely all messed up.

In a perfect world, or (I'd suggest) even a reasonable world, it should be a public health issue, where good solid information is "all good".  And I applaud those who tried to do just that.  Although it definitely veered on occasion.  But somehow, in the current environment, the general public focus on getting and providing "good, solid information" seems to have gotten lost.  Sadly.

I know, its just bananas that people cannot stop  throwing the kitchen sink into absolutely everything.

rfordphotos wrote:
Yeah, lets stifle the little discussion going on on MM because a few members get their panties in a twist. We should limit it to the important discussions of flakes, escorts and how many prints are due for tfp.

Here's a thought for those that dont enjoy the discussions: DONT READ THEM

I dont give a flying fuck about the retoucher's forum. but I dont propose closing it. Pretty much feel the same about the Hair and Makeup---the realm of other experts, not me ....  So I skip them..... surely I am not the ONLY one who figured out how to avoid parts of MM I dont care for.

What is it that is forcing you to read them? Why do you even CARE about the discussions that dont interest you?

As for the "community" of MM..... it died a LONG time ago, and that death had NOTHING to do with political discussion in the forum.

Same discussion going on in my NextDoor group. People want to talk about a lost cat, but not the  loss of our democracy going on before our very eyes. I'm sure the same complaints about politics went on in Germany, 1933.

MoRina wrote:
The problem....

I love when people complain about negativity and vitriol, and then proceed to post negativity and vitriol. It reminds me of...oh wait I can't go there.

Anyway Mo, your post seems to be at best apocryphal if not a revisionist view of MM forums. When the Waitte family owned MM, the forums were rude, enlightening, insulting, ribald, interesting, political, negative, positive, stupid, brilliant, informative. And no I'm not referring to Soap Box. Hell, it was par for the course for some hack photogs who had never even done a commercial shoot to insult and lecture pro photogs from New York or Paris about how a modeling agency works. And the models! The poor models who had more insults and misogyny thrown at them by GWCs than Godzilla has scales. That was the MM community when Tyler ruled the roost.

Internet Brands changed the forums which is their right. People fell away. People moved on. You can only screw the wife so many times before it gets a little boring. The giddiness of MM evaporated. Nope, it wasn't politics, negativity or vitriol that retarded these forums. Just the opposite. Politics, negativity, stupidity, vitriol, etc. gave the forums spice.

But as a non-photographer, I learned huge amounts about how to take a photo and what constitutes a good photo from these forums. Through all the crap, the forums were gold. Some really great pros shared their knowledge. It was (is) easy to separate the truth from the bs. (Photographers can't hide from their portfolios)


The MM forums used to have one single rule: No Snowflakes Allowed. Not any longer.

Focuspuller wrote:
Same discussion going on in my NextDoor group. People want to talk about a lost cat, but not the  loss of our democracy going on before our very eyes. I'm sure the same complaints about politics went on in Germany, 1933.

Godwin's Law. Nice. So do you think arguing politics on Modelmayhem is you doing your part to save the democracy?

We all know where to find news. Everyone here has access to the internet. Just because some of us feel that there are better times and places and ways to fight political fights doesn't mean we are ignoring issues.

MoRina wrote:
[...]
We all know where to find news. Everyone here has access to the internet. Just because some of us feel that there are better times and places and ways to fight political fights doesn't mean we are ignoring issues.

I'm not sure if you were suggesting that the thread in question shouldn't have been allowed...?

Don't forget that in this case the forum thread was NOT posted about a political issue.   It was posted about the pandemic at a time, when (due to some news sources) a lot of the critical information as to how to protect yourself and others, wasn't successfully getting through to a lot of people.

Unfortunately at some point along the way, some at State and National levels, chose to politicize the issue.  So we ended up with this messy combination of useful information and updates, mixed in with political attempts to misuse or distort key medical and scientific information.  This sometimes resulted in major announcements / misinformation that could actively harm people's lives.

I am not claiming the thread didn't have problems with politics, it definitely did.  And under the strange circumstances, it could be minimized but not avoided entirely.  I may be wrong, but I hope the thread did more "good" than "bad" overall.  I certainly learnt a lot.

The whole thread (and the issue itself), just didn't neatly fit into an "important and useful, without being eventually touched by politicians" category.  Which is presumably why it ran for so long...

MoRina wrote:
Godwin's Law. Nice. So do you think arguing politics on Modelmayhem is you doing your part to save the democracy?

We all know where to find news. Everyone here has access to the internet. Just because some of us feel that there are better times and places and ways to fight political fights doesn't mean we are ignoring issues.

Maybe you equate discussing the most serious issue of our time with an annoying argument or a fight. I don't. You don't want to participate? Then DON"T. But kindly do not presume to decide what "OFF-TOPICS " are permissible for everyone.

Focuspuller wrote:
Maybe you equate discussing the most serious issue of our time with an annoying argument or a fight. I don't. You don't want to participate? Then DON"T. But kindly do not presume to decide what "OFF-TOPICS " are permissible for everyone.

You didn't answer my question, and I was really interested in hearing your answer. Do you think arguing about politics online, especially in a forum on a modeling website, is effecting real change and making a difference?

MoRina wrote:
(To FocusPuller): "You didn't answer my question, and I was really interested in hearing your answer. Do you think arguing about politics online, especially in a forum on a modeling website, is effecting real change and making a difference?"

Personally, I could see that by the number of people that changed their views early on in that particular thread (about the seriousness of the issue and how to slow down the curve) that on the health front, that thread DID (to quote you) effect change and made a difference...

The thread wasn't all about politics, although politics certainly became an aspect of it.  And sometimes, a rather important aspect in cases where the politics conflicted with the science.