Jump to content


Photo

Troublemakers


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 14 December 2007 - 06:14 PM

Just discovered that Mike Miller, Adam Smith, and John Peters were all posting from the same IP address. All three accounts have been suspended and the IP range has been banned from the forum.
  • 0

#2 Adamo P Cultraro

Adamo P Cultraro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:40 PM

So who is he? This is exactly what I was saying in the other "name requirement" thread. A guy posts under some generic name just to make trouble, and there's no way to weed them out.
  • 0

#3 joe garcia

joe garcia
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Other
  • Central New York

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:11 PM

well at least this one's busted

good work mate
  • 0

#4 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:47 PM

Just discovered that Mike Miller, Adam Smith, and John Peters were all posting from the same IP address. All three accounts have been suspended and the IP range has been banned from the forum.



It was pretty obvious *he* ot *they* had an agenda to push. Alarm bells were ringing based on the fact that they had recently joined, they had no history, and they are all of sudden knocking up 25 posts a day.

As to the whole real name discussion, I say it worked perfectly fine in this case. None of us knew the person from the forum. it was a new name, and based on the join date, lack of posting history and posting numbers, it wasnt long before discovery. I say it works fine.

jb
  • 0

#5 Alex Ellerman

Alex Ellerman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 228 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:47 PM

If we all just Cinematography.com tattoo's and then post pics of ourselves with the tattoos = problem solved.
  • 0

#6 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 05:52 AM

Just discovered that Mike Miller, Adam Smith, and John Peters were all posting from the same IP address. All three accounts have been suspended and the IP range has been banned from the forum.


But was it really necessary to close the threads to other posters? Whilst there was clearly an agenda there, I don't think most of the questions asked were all that unreasonable. We had some fairly good discussions going, and I don't think there has been a single one where I either haven't learned something knew, or had something pointed out that hadn't occured to me before.

As for banning the IP range, is that really going to be effective? Most domestic ISPs use dynamic address assignment, so unless the offender keep his computer and modem running 24/7, the only consistent information you will get is the ISP's name, and the city where the server is located. My ISP is Big Pond Sydney which is by far the biggest ISP in this country. They must have hundreds of thousands of subscribers in Sydney alone, so if the offending posters happened to use Big Pond, you would be potentially shutting out an awful lot of innocent people. Besides there is nothing to stop the offenders logging in at work, at a public internet kiosk, or even using an open wireless node with their laptop! There is also the possibility that they are three different people - employees of the same company, logging in at work.

I realize it can be very difficult to maintain an orderly discussion at times, particularly when some posters insist on saying things (right or wrong) that other posters do not want to hear, but if you slam the door every time the discussion starts to get a bit heated, you provide a perfect mechanism for de-facto censorship; all somebody has to do is log in and pick a fight.

One thing that should be insisted on is people refrain from making vague statements to the effect that: "This has been covered/explained before." Anybody who makes statements like that should be required to provide a link to the relevant forum discussion, not just gesture vaguely in its general direction.
  • 0

#7 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 06:04 AM

As to the whole real name discussion, I say it worked perfectly fine in this case. None of us knew the person from the forum. it was a new name, and based on the join date, lack of posting history and posting numbers, it wasnt long before discovery. I say it works fine.

jb

So what happens if somebody just happens to stumble on this forum and decides to start up an account? Are new posters not allowed to have "agendas"? Should there be a probation period before you are allowed to say anything controversial?

I can see a situation where one or more employees at one of RED's competitors feel entitled to put in their two cents' worth, but may not be allowed to mention their company's name in a forum.
  • 0

#8 Allen Achterberg

Allen Achterberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Santa Maria CA

Posted 15 December 2007 - 06:25 AM

If we all just Cinematography.com tattoo's and then post pics of ourselves with the tattoos = problem solved.



Don't tempt me...
  • 0

#9 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:14 AM

So what happens if somebody just happens to stumble on this forum and decides to start up an account? Are new posters not allowed to have "agendas"? Should there be a probation period before you are allowed to say anything controversial?

I can see a situation where one or more employees at one of RED's competitors feel entitled to put in their two cents' worth, but may not be allowed to mention their company's name in a forum.



That's not really what I was saying.

Everyone has an agenda. But in this case it was obvious to me that it was a patsy in this case. Anyone should be entitled to have their say. But this was someone who had three aliases. We are lucky enough to have someone like Jim himself contributing. But we also know who Jim is and what his agenda is based on where he works, and his posting history that we've been reading. We give his posting more weight than someone else who joined 4 hours ago. He has Credibility. He has History.

There's nothing wrong with an individual posting under their own name is there ? They don't have to list the company they work for.

The trouble is when someone pretends to be someone they're not. Anyone can join and have an agenda. There are lot's of personality types. We know the kinds of posts we're going to get from someone like Phil and based on history and if we generally agree or not, we individually weigh up how much notice we take of that particular post. But we get to know them over time.

Ive actually been participating here myself only for the past few months. But I happily put my website on my profile and in my sig. You can easily google my name and location and find out that who I am and decide for yourself if I'm worth of being heard as you surf through posts.

Things are actually pretty lenient here. If you have been on CML for example, you have forums with 3 posts per day limits and much much more rigid and strict codes. If you don't sign with your location and title, you get banned. If you reply with more than 5 lines of quote your post is bounced.Oh... And a lot less noise as well.

Just a name with no location in my head means Im a lot less likely to pay attention to their posts. It depends on what they are saying to of course. We didn't have to ban them. We could have let them keep posting. But wasn't it boring to see the discussion hijacked in that way ?

jb
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2007 - 11:30 AM

"Adam Smith" making a post like "I love RED because the picture is noisy and out of focus when you turn it on, which gives me a film look" is just trolling for an argument. Just because it may lead to a few good posts doesn't make it any less annoying or disruptive. It's not the way to phrase a decent argument.

Essentially he was making fun of RED, which doesn't do much to develop this site for any practical advice on how to use the RED. I know some here would love to make this site RED-free, but that would only diminish its legitimacy as a filmmaking forum.

If a RED fanboy made 25 posts a day about how film was dead and kept shouting "viva la Red Revolution!" it would constitute as trolling too.
  • 0

#11 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2007 - 01:51 PM

It's strange to me how forums like this are such a magnet for crackpots.

Yours sincerely,
The Messiah.
  • 0

#12 Gary McClurg

Gary McClurg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Producer

Posted 15 December 2007 - 02:45 PM

:huh: or :(
  • 0

#13 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:07 PM

It's strange to me how forums like this are such a magnet for crackpots.

Yours sincerely,
The Messiah.


Crackpots, or just nonentities in RED's competitors trying to score brownie points with their management? In other words, what we may be seeing here is simply a distorted mirror image of the rampant fanboy-ism seen on certain other forums. Who else would care?!

I know you were joking, but your post defines the situation in a nutshell (so to speak:-) Most of the people publicly decrying the activities of crackpots are crackpots themselves, whose own particular brand of crackpottery happens to be in conflict with the other person's.

Crackpots are simply people who have difficulty coping where their notions or fantasies conflict with reality. A more rational person faced with such a situation will eventually amend their viewpoint and move on from there. Crackpots by contrast crave certainty, and so are often incapable of modifying their world view, and so their automatic reaction to such a conflict is to try to "correct" the perceived reality.

Fortunately, in most cases this is limited to boring people at social gatherings and/or writing long, rambling and generally incomprehensible letters to the editors of newspapers, often handwritten in Green or Purple ink! (It's true - ask any editor).

Of course, most such letters are never published, only providing amusement for the newspaper staff. But now with most Internet forums, there is no such restriction, and even less so with blogs. Or the Wikipedia.

In the case of video camera formats, there is a certain strain of the chattering classes that will happily (and usually amicably) debate the pros and cons of whatever camera they think is going to launch them on their personal path to cinematic fame and riches, as long as nobody dares to point out that there is far more to that than just owning (or knowing how to use) a camera of any sort!

Such people are immediately branded video-haters, Luddites, fossilized film freaks and so on, as if doing that will somehow magically dissolve the harsh dictates of reality.

I realize this not specifically a discussion of the RED, but the RED is not just a camera, it's also a mini-sociological phenomenon, almost like a new religion.
  • 0

#14 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 15 December 2007 - 07:25 PM

"Adam Smith" making a post like "I love RED because the picture is noisy and out of focus when you turn it on, which gives me a film look" is just trolling for an argument. Just because it may lead to a few good posts doesn't make it any less annoying or disruptive. It's not the way to phrase a decent argument.

Essentially he was making fun of RED, which doesn't do much to develop this site for any practical advice on how to use the RED. I know some here would love to make this site RED-free, but that would only diminish its legitimacy as a filmmaking forum.


Just so, but that was not what I actually said.

Why shut down the whole thread, rather than just banning the disruptive posters?

If you find certain posters annoying, you can simply ignore them, and you might still learn something from the other posters. (Information is like money; the store doesn't particularly care who you got it from, as long as it's legal tender).

If a RED fanboy made 25 posts a day about how film was dead and kept shouting "viva la Red Revolution!" it would constitute as trolling too.

On some forums that would only constitute good manners :rolleyes:

By the way, did you happen to visit the LEMAC website (the first Sydney company with a RED to rent?) I like their heading: "Video Tape is Dead" , which is a commemoration of the 50th anniversary of a certain famous headline in Variety... :rolleyes:
  • 0

#15 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 December 2007 - 11:52 PM

I have to say that I think the general response by the membership of this forum to this troublemaking (good term; instigator would be another) was pretty well-balanced. I don't think the image of cinematography.com being "anti-RED" plays out if one takes an honest look at what transpired in the last few days.

It's unfortunate that Tim and others have to police the site in this way, but I would say that for the most part we come off fairly well.
  • 0

#16 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1729 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 25 December 2007 - 06:13 PM

Not that I'm some perfect poster... But If someone is signing into a Forum under 3 different names, thats enough to raise a bright red flag.

I also highly doubt that these were 3 individual people. Whats the odds of 3 people at the same IP address signing up that fast and have pretty close to the same posting habits?

As to why the discussion was shut down, I don't see 100% why, other than the fact that they had no real relevance for anyone to use. I'm sure Tim had his reason's for shutting it down.
  • 0

#17 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 26 December 2007 - 04:04 AM

As to why the discussion was shut down, I don't see 100% why, other than the fact that they had no real relevance for anyone to use. I'm sure Tim had his reason's for shutting it down.


Hi Landon,

I shut down those threads, after receiving a stream of complaints. I was shooting jobs back to back & did not have the time to babysit the forum on an hourly basis.

Stephen
  • 0

#18 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1729 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 26 December 2007 - 02:37 PM

Ok, then I'm sure Stephen had his reason's for shutting it down ;-)

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 26 December 2007 - 02:37 PM.

  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 26 December 2007 - 03:11 PM

Ok, then I'm sure Stephen had his reason's for shutting it down ;-)



Hi Landon,

After Tim had suspended the 3 accounts, he could have reopened the thread if he had felt there was any benefit.

Stephen
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 December 2007 - 08:51 PM

In some ways, leaving those threads open would have rewarded the original poster for deliberately stirring the hornet's nest.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Opal

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider