Originally posted by texandrews While I think that dismissive and/or demeaning comments indeed need to be checked (I run The LightZone Project website with several others, and we are extremely strict about this...), I also believe that there really are only a handful of problem people from what I can see on the medium format, K1, and full frame forums, plus a couple of others I visit infrequently. I also must question the idea that it's the responders who are most at fault, and not the instigators. To whit:
My suggestion is for the mods to reach out to these individuals directly, and, if necessary, read them the riot act. In particular we seem on these forums to have a few individuals who are consistently negative about Ricoh, Pentax and its/their products, in addition to the doom and gloom group. I go out of my way to be judicious in my responses, but I have to say several of these consistently negative people are getting very tiresome. Only one ever seems to add anything substantive to the discussions, even though these examples themselves can be tendentious, sometimes at best. It's often so bad more than a few of us wonder why they have Pentax gear at all, and why they are here. This continual confrontation on their parts hardly makes this a more pleasant or productive place.
Deal with these very few individuals---I think it's only several, really, and it will go far to cleaning things up. Why give them a pass and blame the responders?
With respect, I believe the above is dealt with by the updated forum rules, the
recent post on forum behaviour (and the e-mail Adam sent out today referencing that), diligence of members in reporting (then avoiding) unacceptable behaviour, and our on-going (and increasingly stringent) moderating activity which penalises and limits - in a variety of ways - those who repeatedly break forum rules, whether they be OPs or responders.
You can be sure that we take all reports seriously, and - contrary to what some members might think - we try not to be biased for or against specific members. We take current and past behaviour and moderating history into consideration, and act purely on that