| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2005 03:26:39 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
So that I understand - SC CAN identify a member's entry image in a challenge as the challenge is in progress even without a request for DQ. If this is true is there anyone else that has that type of access?
Is there anyone voting on challenge images at the same time they can connect the image with the member? |
Although it is possible for us to connect an image with a user without a DQ request, we do NOT have direct access to the information on the voting page (of course).
It is NOT possible for anyone but Admins and SC to access this information.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:29:00 PM · #52 |
| So all these fluf questions and nobody asking the probing question..... So who gets to design the cool icons - each person do it themselves? :-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:31:11 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by robs:
So all these fluf questions and nobody asking the probing question..... So who gets to design the cool icons - each person do it themselves? :-) |
Konador has made pretty much all the icons, I think, per our requests.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:38:58 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by drake:
what the "setlzer image fiasco" mean |
Thread
Originally posted by scalvert (emphasis added):
Images are never deleted, only hidden, so it can always be reinstated if needed. In that case, the SC member acted in good faith and was justified by site policy, but took some flak over it. Unilateral moves are fairly limited, and I'm sure there would be discussion before a similar situation occurred again. |
That's a shame. A fear of acting unilaterally can not be good for the site or the SC themselves. Although it might make a good entry for the phobia challenge. ;) |
I'm not sure that fear is the right word. Caution is probably more appropriate.
Generally speaking we don't like to act unilaterally unless it's clearly appropriate. I a similar situation to the one referred to above might result in a more careful reading of the rules, but we'll all take whatever actions are necessary and proper to maintain the interests of the community and the site. The member who removed John's photo knows we believe her judgment is sound, and I'm sure she'll continue to exercise sound judgment in the future.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Above there is a quote from 'SC Policy' -- I've assumed there was such a document, is there a specific reason it is not listed with the other 'legal' documents of the site (ie. TOS, challenge rules, etc.). |
"SC Policy" is a bit of a misnomer as it does not exist as a single document. The policies are spread across a user guide, various forum threads, procedural and "how to" notes at the bottom of various pages, and so on. Some are not documented at all but exist as a matter of custom.
For example, we won't suspend a user without first voting on the issue. I don't think that's documented anywhere, but it's never needed to be as it's pretty much common sense. If a Site Council member's own photo comes up for DQ, that SC member recuses himself from the discussion or voting. That's buried in a forum thread somewhere. The workflow for processing DQ's is documented at the bottom of the page for handling them.
Originally posted by Britannica:
And a few more:
1) reference has been made to a unanimous vote for DQs -- yet I have the impression from previous threads the vote is often split (often quite evenly). Is there some hassling between the SC to get them to change their vote, like what happens in a jury room at a trial (personal experience, harrassed in a locked room for hours because I wouldn't change my vote just so they could go home -- not pretty). |
We'll argue the merits, sometimes rather bluntly, but I don't think I've ever seen a SC member harassed over an issue, and I hope I've never done it to anyone.
Originally posted by Britannica:
1a) It's been mentioned in the thread some members are not active in each discussion -- how can there be a unanimous vote if that is the case? |
When we refer to a unanimous vote, we mean it was unanimous amoung those who voted.
Originally posted by Britannica:
2) When voting on a DQ, how many votes are taken? That is, in the case of an image with more than one potential rule violation, is there a vote for each violation?
2a) If there is only one vote taken, how do you prevent an image from being disqualified simply for being too contraversial -- that is, some SC voting against it for one offense, others for other offenses, but no single offense enough to disqualify it. |
Typically, there is one vote. I can't recall an instance where a photograph was under DQ for multiple reasons AND none of them were slam-dunk.
The check on this is that when we DQ the photo we have to provide a reason. If the reason isn't clear that will spawn a discussion, and then we'll deal with it at that point.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:52:56 PM · #55 |
My only question:
Boxers or briefs.
Thanks.
(female members need not reply :o) )
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:56:30 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Do S/C members have anything to do with prints being accepted/rejected on DPCPrints? |
No.
Originally posted by TooCool:
What is the biggest thing that you look for when deciding on who to add to the S/C? |
This is a tough question, and you'd probably get as many different answers as there are Site Council members.
It's critical that applicants understand the long-term direction of the site. They should have a solid understanding of the Challenge Rules and of site policy. Their forum posts and comments should show patience respect for their fellow participants, especially when there is a difference of opinion. It's also become almost an unwritten policy (and we should probably put it in writing next round) that applicants need to be on the site for at least a year to be considered (this is so we know they'll stick around).
Of course, many of the applicants we get meet these criteria, so beyond these we look individually at what those applicants bring to the table. For example, blemt works for a major camera retailer and has previous online moderation experience. Everyone has unique experiences, knowledge, backgrounds and ideas, and when choosing Site Council members we seek those who talents offer that something extra that will help the site move forward.
Originally posted by TooCool:
Does the S/C have the authority/ability to delete user accounts when necesary? |
Yes, though we were only granted that authority about a week ago.
Suspension is never initiated without a full Site Council vote. Deletion of accounts is limited to fraudulent accounts, spammers (that is, a user who signs up just to spam the site) and users who request deletion of their accounts.
Originally posted by TooCool:
What's hbunch's phone number? |
867-5309.
Oh, wait. That's Jenny.
Originally posted by TooCool:
What is the most common question asked of the S/C concerning rules? |
What's hbunch's phone number?
Oh wait, you said concerning rules!
Probably various forms of questions about major elements. We're always willing to field questions on this, but a good rule of thumb is to describe the original photograph as if you were describing it to someone who has not seen it. Now, describe your submission. If your description changes, whatever you added or removed is probably a major element.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:58:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
So that I understand - SC CAN identify a member's entry image in a challenge as the challenge is in progress even without a request for DQ. If this is true is there anyone else that has that type of access? |
No.
Originally posted by PhotoRhyno:
Is there anyone voting on challenge images at the same time they can connect the image with the member? |
No. We can't see that on the voting page. We have to go to a different page to do it.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2005-12-17 16:16:21.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:00:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
My only question:
Boxers or briefs.
Thanks.
(female members need not reply :o) ) |
Depends...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:17:31 PM · #59 |
Here are a couple of Q's off the top of my head. :-)
1. Has SC as a collective ever been wrong about anything?
2. What DPC member has driven you the most insane this past week?
 |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:23:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Here are a couple of Q's off the top of my head. :-)
1. Has SC as a collective ever been wrong about anything? |
Once we though we were wrong... but we were mistaken.
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
2. What DPC member has driven you the most insane this past week? |
I won't let that slip... oops!
Message edited by author 2005-12-17 16:23:52.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:25:58 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Here are a couple of Q's off the top of my head. :-)
1. Has SC as a collective ever been wrong about anything? |
Well, just last week, kirbic was telling me what a nice guy you were... ;-)
Sure, we're only human. That's why we do so much by comittee. We work together as a group to try to minimize mistakes. When they do happen, we do what we can to correct the mistake, and look at what we can due to avoid repeating the mistake. The photo you mentioned above is a good example... the situation uncovered a deficiency in the self-DQ policy, so we've addressed that to avoid a similar situation going forward. We reversed ourselves several times over the years on anonymous vs. non-anonymous comments during voting, before settling on the current compromise. We made several mistakes in the rollout of the invitational (formerly masters) challenge, which ultimately caused the idea to be much less popular than I think it would have been if we'd announced it and framed it properly. There are countless other examples, but that should give you an idea...
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
2. What DPC member has driven you the most insane this past week?
|
In my case it's not so much a drive as it is a short walk...
~Terry
Message edited by author 2005-12-17 16:26:48.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:39:00 PM · #62 |
Great thread. Thanks for supplying the much needed propagan--- uh, "information". ;-)
Funny no mention of the blatent discrimination during the April campaign.
No, I'm not bitter.
-Woody Gore
j/k - most of what most of you do is appreciated most of the time. :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:42:42 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Their forum posts and comments should show patience respect for their fellow participants, especially when there is a difference of opinion. |
sooo... how on earth did MK get on?!?! :0P |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:47:20 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Their forum posts and comments should show patience respect for their fellow participants, especially when there is a difference of opinion. |
sooo... how on earth did MK get on?!?! :0P |
Dunno. She just kinda showed up one day.
Jokes aside, mk is better than most at making it clear when she's serious and when she's not.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:48:55 PM · #65 |
I think we all occasionally post things that we intend to be personal opinions rather than "official statements" from Site Council. I know I've been guilty of it from time to time, too.
And sometimes we find ourselves defending the site no matter how harsh our replies sound, and that's a result of us feeling passionate about something we really enjoy. And once in a while we pinch each other a little bit to remind ourselves that we need to watch our own tones.
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Their forum posts and comments should show patience respect for their fellow participants, especially when there is a difference of opinion. |
sooo... how on earth did MK get on?!?! :0P |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:52:19 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
And once in a while we pinch each other |
Hmmmmm... |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:53:17 PM · #67 |
This is done by a special Site Council Pinching Device. We all have them installed via USB ports.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
And once in a while we pinch each other |
Hmmmmm... |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:54:11 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I think we all occasionally post things that we intend to be personal opinions rather than "official statements" from Site Council. I know I've been guilty of it from time to time, too.
And sometimes we find ourselves defending the site no matter how harsh our replies sound, and that's a result of us feeling passionate about something we really enjoy. And once in a while we pinch each other a little bit to remind ourselves that we need to watch our own tones.
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
sooo... how on earth did MK get on?!?! :0P |
|
And that's why I voted for MK... so I could pinch her! 
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:02:18 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
This is done by a special Site Council Pinching Device. We all have them installed via USB ports.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
And once in a while we pinch each other |
Hmmmmm... |
|
And you should see what we do to each other over FireWire!
I won't go into what happens over SCSI...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:18:17 PM · #70 |
First of all this is a great thread and thank you for being so open, it really helps to understand the inner workings of the site.
Just a couple of questions I have :
Some SC have mentioned how they quite often get involved in forums, which is great and I respect their right to do this but do you think it would be possible if posting personal comments SC could use a different icon as we get confused to what is a personal opinion and what is an "official statements" ?
And secondly my pet hate, When we have an image that you get a request for validation and it is found to be legal why do we never find out why that DQ was raised ? |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:24:50 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by skiprow:
what is the COMPLETE process for setting up new challenges? |
Anybody can suggest a challenge topic (preferably with a full title and description). SC members add them to the database. D&L determine suitability and do the actual picking (we don't know the next topic until the rollover- same as you). |
do ALL the suggestions get added, or do ya'll converse about them and decide which ones to add to the database. i mean, is there any 'pre-filtering' by the SC? |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:28:09 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
First of all this is a great thread and thank you for being so open, it really helps to understand the inner workings of the site.
Just a couple of questions I have :
Some SC have mentioned how they quite often get involved in forums, which is great and I respect their right to do this but do you think it would be possible if posting personal comments SC could use a different icon as we get confused to what is a personal opinion and what is an "official statements" ? |
Many of us do try diligently to emphaize, where appropriate, that our posts are personal opinion. We should, IMO, always do this where we are discussing site policy, but expressing our own views.
With regard to a different icon, right now, the way the site is coded, if someone changes their icon, that icon change becomes "retroactive" for all posts previously made; there's no way to change an icon for just some posts. Also, it would still require the person to remember to change icons.
Originally posted by keegbow:
And secondly my pet hate, When we have an image that you get a request for validation and it is found to be legal why do we never find out why that DQ was raised ? |
Yo might get several, varying opinions as to why this is so. Certainly we need to keep the actual requests private so that folks feel free to request a review. We do receive a LOT of requests, so it would be a ton of extra work to manually go back and communicate the request reason for each (validated) shot. This would be something that would be difficult to automate; there could, in theory, be more than one reason. FWIW, it is also possible for a DQ request to be raised for one reason, and the photo to be DQ'd, but for a completely different reason.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:31:46 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Some SC have mentioned how they quite often get involved in forums, which is great and I respect their right to do this but do you think it would be possible if posting personal comments SC could use a different icon as we get confused to what is a personal opinion and what is an "official statements" ? |
This was discussed at one point, and while it would help in some ways, it could (unless there is some fancy coding available) cause us to have to log out, log in as karmat user, log out, log in as karmat sc, log in, etc. etc. etc.
In situations where it may not be distinguishable between my opinion and site council speaking, I will try to add or in the post.
Just as a note, our comments on pictures in challenges and portfolios will always be our opinions. ;)
[quote]And secondly my pet hate, When we have an image that you get a request for validation and it is found to be legal why do we never find out why that DQ was raised ? [/quote]
I could answer this, but I'm not really sure, off the top of my head. I know there is a reason, we have discussed it several times, it's just not stickin' in there right now. (long day) |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:35:17 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
We do receive a LOT of requests, so it would be a ton of extra work to manually go back and communicate the request reason for each (validated) shot. This would be something that would be difficult to automate; there could, in theory, be more than one reason. FWIW, it is also possible for a DQ request to be raised for one reason, and the photo to be DQ'd, but for a completely different reason. |
Why not just have the DQ requests stored in association with the image - like comments and then give the photog access to view that (minus the requestor's username)?
I agree with keegbow - knowing why people thought your photo was illegal is fair, reasonable and logical. |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:37:30 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
First of all this is a great thread and thank you for being so open, it really helps to understand the inner workings of the site.
Just a couple of questions I have :
Some SC have mentioned how they quite often get involved in forums, which is great and I respect their right to do this but do you think it would be possible if posting personal comments SC could use a different icon as we get confused to what is a personal opinion and what is an "official statements" ? |
This should probable fall under a "website suggestion" (as posted above) but generally speaking nothing we say should be considered official unless we state it as such. If there's any doubt, feel free to ask us to clarify.
Originally posted by keegbow:
And secondly my pet hate, When we have an image that you get a request for validation and it is found to be legal why do we never find out why that DQ was raised ? |
There are several reasons for this. Most importantly, we want users to feel comfortable making requests without fear of retaliation. In some cases, users have reported other users that they know personally. If we disclosed the reasons in those cases, the source of the request would be evident. If it helps, about 95% of all proof requests happen because there is the appearance either of possible spot-editing, or of a possible date violation. A proof request does not mean we think you broke the rules. It only means that without the original, we do not have enough information to make that determination.
|
|
