| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2007 12:09:13 PM · #3126 |
| With regard to the Mary situation, do any of the now reputable Suckees think perhaps pleas (and please) from some of us might be helpful? |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 12:57:02 PM · #3127 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
With regard to the Mary situation, do any of the now reputable Suckees think perhaps pleas (and please) from some of us might be helpful? |
In reference to the Mary situation... We don't know who she dealt with. We don't know exactly what was said. So, I'm not sure we should interfere unless she requests us to. I certainly don't want to lose her, but it will come down to what she wants in the end as far as letting us know. I personally would stand behind her 100% because the whole situation stinks. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 01:15:20 PM · #3128 |
| Wise words, Kelli. Thanks. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 01:16:39 PM · #3129 |
WHAT?!?! i can't get to that thread, but the link name says enough! dang! >.<
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 01:32:36 PM · #3130 |
I had to log in to that site again, but I was able to read the thread afterward.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 02:53:57 PM · #3131 |
hi.
it's not normally our policy to talk about situations with individual users, but i wanted to post a note in here.
i'm not trying to be a bad guy and i'm not trying to be rude to mary. in fact, i hope she will agree, that all of my communications with her have been very above the board and open.
until reading your off-DPC thread, i had no idea what this was all about. i still don't, really. AFAIK we were never asked by mary to remove the image. it was just reported as being in the Nude gallery incorrectly, so we asked that it be removed. it was not removed after repeated requests, so mary was suspended (not banned).
the suspension is not permanent. she has been told that she is more than welcome to come back as soon as the image is removed from the gallery.
this is the same policy we have in place for everyone. we do not engage in favoritism or game playing or any of the other myriad things people think we do to make the site our own personal playground. rather, we strive to make it fun and usable for EVERYONE, and flaunting the gallery process -- for whatever reason -- reduces its usefulness.
as i said in the Admin Announcement thread, we do not patrol the galleries. we simply take action when miscategorizations are reported. if you see other images that should not be in the nude gallery, please let us know and we will treat them in exactly the same manner as we did here.
if the image is that personally offensive, i suggest a combination of FireFox and Adblock -- both free -- that allow you to "block" any image (or images) from your browser so you never have to see them again.
i hardly think putting the image in one of the most popular galleries on the site is the way to "hide" it.
that's about all that we are going to say publicly on the matter. it's already more than i should have said, probably. the ball rests firmly in mary's court, and i will personally remove the suspension the second that the image is removed from the gallery.
rob
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 14:54:50. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:01:44 PM · #3132 |
| Dang. Getting nearly as depressing as my challenge entries. :-( |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:22:16 PM · #3133 |
at  muckpond- oh, ok. you guys are doing your job then, and Mary isn't gone for good. that's a relief. i hope she gets it removed soon. only question; how can she get it removed if she is suspended? is suspension just prevention from challenges and forums?
at  Melethia- we're team suck for a reason :D . if we all got great scores with every challenge, we'd have to change to something like team rock...
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:23:59 PM · #3134 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
at muckpond- oh, ok. you guys are doing your job then, and Mary isn't gone for good. that's a relief. i hope she gets it removed soon. only question; how can she get it removed if she is suspended? is suspension just prevention from challenges and forums?
|
yup. she still has access to the site and her profile.
i don't really want to see anyone "gone for good" -- especially not over something as silly as this. and i really hate that it's gotten to this point. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:37:05 PM · #3135 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Muppet:
at muckpond- oh, ok. you guys are doing your job then, and Mary isn't gone for good. that's a relief. i hope she gets it removed soon. only question; how can she get it removed if she is suspended? is suspension just prevention from challenges and forums?
|
yup. she still has access to the site and her profile.
i don't really want to see anyone "gone for good" -- especially not over something as silly as this. and i really hate that it's gotten to this point. |
My question is this... I know it's none of my business really, but why are some allowed to remain there, without suspension, while others aren't? Is it just because of how they answered their email? |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:39:36 PM · #3136 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Muppet:
at muckpond- oh, ok. you guys are doing your job then, and Mary isn't gone for good. that's a relief. i hope she gets it removed soon. only question; how can she get it removed if she is suspended? is suspension just prevention from challenges and forums?
|
yup. she still has access to the site and her profile.
i don't really want to see anyone "gone for good" -- especially not over something as silly as this. and i really hate that it's gotten to this point. |
My question is this... I know it's none of my business really, but why are some allowed to remain there, without suspension, while others aren't? Is it just because of how they answered their email? |
No, it's more because we weren't aware that they were there (we do not patrol the galleries). Second, because once we are aware, it takes time to get it done (communicating back and forth, not everyone answers immediately). Also, if someone should answer, "So suspend me," what are we supposed to do? Not saying anyone did, just saying that answers vary a great deal. Third, because we realized a little while back that registered users (not members) can't change the gallery assignations (they don't have access to that feature, it's a member benefit), so we're trying to figure out how to deal with that.
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 15:44:34. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:44:36 PM · #3137 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
at Melethia- we're team suck for a reason :D . if we all got great scores with every challenge, we'd have to change to something like team rock... |
Yeah, I know. My point being this used to be a place relatively safe from politics and what not, except for the occasional poem with a meaning that would be beyond my grasp.
In the mean time, I'm cleaning house. Making room in my portfolio so I can stick up new sucky junk. :-) It's spring in Germany and the weather has been nice so I have some pretty tourist snapshots (which I shall not mark for any gallery, not even snapshots) I'll get to posting either today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:48:28 PM · #3138 |
Originally posted by ursula:
No, it's more because we weren't aware that they were there (we do not patrol the galleries). Second, because once we are aware, it takes time to get it done (communicating back and forth, not everyone answers immediately). Also, if someone should answer, "So suspend me," what are we supposed to do? Third, because we realized a little while back that registered users (not members) can't change the gallery assignations (they don't have access to that feature, it's a member benefit), so we're trying to figure out how to deal with that. |
Thanks for the truthful answer. I also wasn't aware that none members couldn't change their assignations. As for the email, I won't even pretend to know the answer to that, but maybe she was kidding or having a bad day. I honestly don't know. But I do know that she is one of the most helpful, sweetest people on here that I know and that's not her typical attitude. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:52:21 PM · #3139 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by ursula:
No, it's more because we weren't aware that they were there (we do not patrol the galleries). Second, because once we are aware, it takes time to get it done (communicating back and forth, not everyone answers immediately). Also, if someone should answer, "So suspend me," what are we supposed to do? Third, because we realized a little while back that registered users (not members) can't change the gallery assignations (they don't have access to that feature, it's a member benefit), so we're trying to figure out how to deal with that. |
Thanks for the truthful answer. I also wasn't aware that none members couldn't change their assignations. As for the email, I won't even pretend to know the answer to that, but maybe she was kidding or having a bad day. I honestly don't know. But I do know that she is one of the most helpful, sweetest people on here that I know and that's not her typical attitude. |
I suspect Mary was frustrated over the whole April Fool's Day challenge and changed challenge. It wasn't the best idea we ever had (the April Fool's Day challenge thing). I'm sorry about the frustration it caused.
I hope Mary moves her image to a different gallery and we can all go on from there. I hope Mary stays at DPC and with your team.
PS: If the image is moved to a different gallery, someone please let us know. We may not notice it right away.
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 16:03:09. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:03:27 PM · #3140 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I hope Mary moves her image to a different gallery and we can all go on from there. I hope Mary stays at DPC and with your team. |
big ditto.
Originally posted by Kelli:
I also wasn't aware that none members couldn't change their assignations. |
neither were we (until recently). none of us has been a "registered user" for quite some time. :) |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:07:13 PM · #3141 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I also wasn't aware that none members couldn't change their assignations. |
yeah, we can't change what we write for our challenge entries either, so if we want to say something about our scores, we have to leave ourselves comments. :)
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:17:29 PM · #3142 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I also wasn't aware that none members couldn't change their assignations. |
yeah, we can't change what we write for our challenge entries either, so if we want to say something about our scores, we have to leave ourselves comments. :) |
Oh! I just thought that was people who didn't realize they could edit it.
I guess it makes sense, since the way you do it is by editing the details in your portfolio, which non-members don't have.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:21:42 PM · #3143 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
With regard to the Mary situation, do any of the now reputable Suckees think perhaps pleas (and please) from some of us might be helpful? |
Originally posted by Kelli:
In reference to the Mary situation... We don't know who she dealt with. We don't know exactly what was said. So, I'm not sure we should interfere unless she requests us to. I certainly don't want to lose her, but it will come down to what she wants in the end as far as letting us know. I personally would stand behind her 100% because the whole situation stinks. |
FWIW......I have stuck my nose in before, with good intention, but without all the facts, and I made a fool of myself.....fortunately, on a private basis ('til now, but you guys know me), but one thing I have learned from a few dealings with Site Council.
They *ARE* fair, and they generally do not enforce rules selectively.
They are also among the better of administrative bodies I've seen on sites everywhere.
AND......if I may qualify their decisions a little further......EVERY time I thought they were out to lunch, they have proven to be unerringly fair and judicious.
That may not necessarily always be right, but in my experience, they have been, and in my experiences in particular, they have been tolerant and kind as well.
Just my $0.02 USD......YMMV
ETA: Love ya, Mary! I hope this gets worked out for all of us, we want you back!
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 18:17:00.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:30:38 PM · #3144 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Kelli:
With regard to the Mary situation, do any of the now reputable Suckees think perhaps pleas (and please) from some of us might be helpful? |
Originally posted by Melethia:
In reference to the Mary situation... We don't know who she dealt with. We don't know exactly what was said. So, I'm not sure we should interfere unless she requests us to. I certainly don't want to lose her, but it will come down to what she wants in the end as far as letting us know. I personally would stand behind her 100% because the whole situation stinks. |
FWIW......I have stuck my nose in before, with good intention, but without all the facts, and I made a fool of myself.....fortunately, on a private basis ('til now, but you guys know me), but one thing I have learned from a few dealings with Site Council.
They *ARE* fair, and they generally do not enforce rules selectively.
They are also among the better of administrative bodies I've seen on sites everywhere.
AND......if I may qualify their decisions a little further......EVERY time I thought they were out to lunch, they have proven to be unerringly fair and judicious.
That may not necessarily always be right, but in my experience, they have been, and in my experiences in particular, they have been tolerant and kind as well.
Just my $0.02 USD......YMMV
ETA: Love ya, Mary! I hope this gets worked out for all of us, we want you back! |
You reversed our quotes Jeb ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 06:18:04 PM · #3145 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You reversed our quotes Jeb ;) |
FINE!!!!!
Fixed mine!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 08:38:44 PM · #3146 |
I would recommend that everyone read this thread:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=575700&page=1#3536674
I agree with Jeb - I think the SC is a group of dedicated volunteers doing their best with limited time. That said, I'd love to hear Mary's side of it, and I hope she'll share it in the team suck forum.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 08:58:35 PM · #3147 |
yep.
must go watch hugh laurie.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 09:07:22 PM · #3148 |
Originally posted by kashi:
Might I have a momentary brag ?
This photo : 
It just garnered me a new personal best, and one that I'm positive will stand for quite a while. Also a top-10 finish (but it was a very small number of entries).
It was an expert-editing challenge, and I'm kind of laughing about my score, as there really is nothing "expert" about the editing, unless cloning out the shirt-sleeve counts.
But it was kind of fun to put together. The original vase is actually behind Teddy, holding him up - using the belt to tie him to the vase.
The vase on the "table" is the cap off a bottle of hair detangler.
The flowers are toothpicks and some fabric flowers that I bought years ago at a fabric store.
The table is the box from my 50-mm lens covered in a white wash cloth.
The hand belongs to my hubby, |
Abso-tootly! Congrats again, Kashi. :) Welcome to the new pressure - producing even more top-notch stuff (which you've been doing, actually, despite DPC scores not reflecting it)!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 09:17:33 PM · #3149 |
I'm not in night or bicycles. My mom is visiting for a couple of days right now. She lives a couple of hours away, and I don't see her nearly as often as I would like to. She was here for an hour or so this afternoon, and I got a great shot of her with Bear. It's in my portfolio now as my Day 10 portrait.
Tomorrow I am taking my older son to the doctor, we think he might have asthma (on top of Asperger's Syndrome, and anaphylactic food allergies). This kid has the stars stacked against him I swear !
So, if I'm MIA for a few days - that is why. Good luck to all who have entered this weeks challenges.
And Levy - thanks. And I fully agreed with your assessment of my Anachronism shot, I knew it didn't fit in when I took it - but I took it for lack of a better idea at the time. I think my stack of old-fashioned cloth diapers would likely have been a better representation, along side all the more modern bathroom fixin's.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 09:31:01 PM · #3150 |
Originally posted by xianart:
yep.
must go watch hugh laurie. |
I read the thread but maybe I missed something. If SC found out about Mary having a picture in the wrong gallery, why didn't they see any of the other ones that aren't nude? Like I said, maybe I just missed something in the mess. |
|
