Should members who violate the TOS be "outed"?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2015 11:17:00 AM · #78

Originally posted by cutout:

of course
they should be outed
better one honest dpcer than a 1000 crooks:-))))))))

I seem to recall someone on this site being named and shamed to the glee of many, only to find out later that there was no wrongdoing.

Sorry, no "outings" for me.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2015 11:17:01 AM · #79

Originally posted by cutout:

of course
they should be outed
better one honest dpcer than a 1000 crooks:-))))))))

I seem to recall someone on this site being named and shamed to the glee of many, only to find out later that there was no wrongdoing.

Sorry, no "outings" for me.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2015 11:17:02 AM · #80

Originally posted by cutout:

of course
they should be outed
better one honest dpcer than a 1000 crooks:-))))))))

I seem to recall someone on this site being named and shamed to the glee of many, only to find out later that there was no wrongdoing.

Sorry, no "outings" for me.

Ray

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/01/2015 11:21:17 AM · #81

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Parabelle:
Interesting point to what apparently is a biased system. I can recognize someone's entry and give them 10s all day long, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if I recognize that persons entry and I give them 1's then it's considered foul play and against the rules.

Seems like a case of double standards, perhaps?

No. That's not legal, either......it's "Buddy Voting" and has the ugly tendency to show up during League play....

No double standard whatsoever. It is definitely enforced.

Definitely enforced, yep.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

03/01/2015 11:54:58 AM · #82

Originally posted by Spork99:

The process should be transparent for many of the same reasons any system that metes out punishments should be transparent. Mostly because doing so avoids the appearance of the punishments being arbitrary, overly severe or the offenses being fabricated.

Yes, what Spork said. Along these lines, back when

posthumous was accused of improper voting, he had to start a thread to defend himself and was eventually exonerated (as Ray mentions). At that time, the method and logic used to indict him was faulty. So I wonder, did these new 'criminals' have a chance to explain or defend themselves? If so, how was that received or considered, since there was no public hearing? I doubt the offender is still able to post in the forums. Personally, I'm not sure names should be named. But when details about the nature, degree and/or consistency of the offense are kept secret, it certainly prevents any public evaluation of the method and logic supporting the accusation. Shouldn't you feel confident about your method and logic?

RKT

Canon EOS-60D

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for Canon

03/01/2015 12:47:54 PM · #83

Originally posted by tanguera:

The main argument so far is to "shame" folks, with plain old curiosity a close second.

Neither of these is a compelling reason to name names. Most folks, faced with a "public shaming", would choose not to return to the "scene of their crime". And the community loses an otherwise valuable and/or repected member. You have NO idea who or why someone violates TOS.

...

I added the bold.

I'm having a difficult time with this particular statement. I have decent reading comprehension...I do. What the bolded text tells me is that perhaps the offender is someone who is considered of value, is respected. That perhaps that person has some reason/excuse that was given for the vaguely described bad behavior? Maybe I'm reading too much into this? See, the thing is I'm not quite sure what has happened, too much vagary IMO. The above statement leads me to think that maybe the person/persons is getting special consideration because they are so valuable/respected and had an excuse for not so respectable behavior? It makes me feel like someone is being protected. I need for things to be more clear, more specific so I can quit surmising. I think all of this can be done while the offender/offenders are kept in temporary exile. If the actions perpetrated can't be made more specific, why bring it up at all. I'm not even sure if this is just one person or multiple people we're talking about. I know I'm touching on concerns mentioned by fellow community members...it's just we're on page 4 in this thread and I'm none the wiser.

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

03/01/2015 12:58:02 PM · #84

Every member is valuable. No one is receiving any special consideration. Johanna was talking generally - hence the 'most folks' preface.

We are going to give you some more details. Give me a short while to compose something.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

03/01/2015 12:58:45 PM · #85

I agree that I'd like to know exactly what was done, how many were involved, and everything except the names. I don't care who did it. I'm very glad they were caught but, I want to know exactly how the crime was committed. I like to know this so I know how many people were involved... were my scores affected, etc. Feel free to do it as the newspapers report the crimes in our other neighborhood (the one with houses instead of computers)... "allegedly..."

Not telling us is getting even worse as time goes by and people get more heated about it. I thought we were just here to debate whether SC should give the names of the "criminals"... not their specific crimes and how you caught them. More information is better than less in this case, I think... so we can be appeased without the names.

PennyStreet

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

03/01/2015 01:05:57 PM · #86

Originally posted by Paul:

Thank you.

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

03/01/2015 01:36:41 PM · #87

OK - here we go...

First of all, sorry about all this. We have been trying to do the right thing here; but given that you don't know the details we have, speculation has been rife. Let me tell you the nature of the TOS violations and the duration of the suspensions. I'm not going to name names though, and when you see the details I'm hoping you'll feel that this is a reasonable course of action.

We have, in this round of ongoing checks, suspended two individuals:

Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.

Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.

The degree of malice and overall impact of activity has informed our decision as to the duration of the penalty.

So, not a great horde of individuals involved.

Yes, we have had correspondence with both individuals.

Yes, we have looked at a number of people's voting patterns and yes different aesthetics show up in those patterns - but we (SC) are people (not computer algorithms) and we appreciate how that happens. These two cases did not come about as a consequence of different aesthetic values but reflect the motivations described above.

As has already been said by other SC members, we thought that rather than just suspend them and say nothing we should remind people that we are diligent to such matters as it is our intention to run such checks from time to time and perhaps more frequently than we have in the past.

I hope that helps to offer some context.

We would like the members to return, this isn't because they are due any special treatment (that wouldn't apply to anyone), it's simply because like all our members they offer up photos and comments and forum postings and (for better or for worse) votes! That's what this community is about - we need you people! I think it would be harder for them to return if they had been named.

I'm confident that the suspensions will act not just as a penalty but as a period of reflective rehabilitation too. Also, the individuals concerned know they are on our radar and any further transgressions will result in a ban.

I've been concerned to read comments in this thread about us coming across as condescending. I was truly upset by that; of course that wasn't our intention but we also have to take some responsibility for how we came across regardless of our motivations.

Please remember the SC are community members like you, who value this community and volunteer to do some extra work. Often, when situations like this come along, there is no manual - we are just trying to do what is best for the wider DPC community.

Perhaps sometimes we make decisions that not everybody might agree with, but that comes with the territory. It's a moderated site - you folks know that. Hopefully the net effect of our voluntary work is positive.

Thanks for reading.

Paul

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

03/01/2015 01:46:52 PM · #88

Paul, i think this approach is the best course, explain with details without the names. I'm satisfied.

RKT

Canon EOS-60D

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for Canon

03/01/2015 01:50:12 PM · #89

Thanks for writing that all out for us Paul...much appreciated.

Enlightened

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/01/2015 02:01:43 PM · #90

Thank you Paul and all of the SC. This approach is appriciated.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/01/2015 02:05:27 PM · #91

Thanks, appreciate the efforts of all on the SC.

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

03/01/2015 02:40:40 PM · #92

Thank you Paul for the reply.

Did the second individuals victim get to know the situation and who had been giving them ones for so long ?
I believe that SC has done an excellent job finding this out but I still think that as victims we have the right to know all the details, believing that the culprits would be any less welcome because we knew when all of SC knows can only be considered as condescending.
The presumed guilty parties should also have the chance to defend themselves in the forums

nygold

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/01/2015 02:46:53 PM · #93

Thanks Paul it's nice to have some answers.
Just one question, did the SC issued a warning to these people?
Something like "Hey we know what your up to knock it off or else" type of thing.

cutout

Canon EOS-20D

03/01/2015 03:02:08 PM · #94

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by cutout:
of course
they should be outed
better one honest dpcer than a 1000 crooks:-))))))))

I seem to recall someone on this site being named and shamed to the glee of many, only to find out later that there was no wrongdoing.

Sorry, no "outings" for me.

Ray

aah,
justice should be seen

jgirl57

03/01/2015 03:19:53 PM · #95

Thank you SC and Paul for explaining....

I am happy with this and the result..so proud to belong to this wonderful community.

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

03/01/2015 03:22:11 PM · #96

Originally posted by jagar:

Did the second individuals victim get to know the situation and who had been giving them ones for so long ?

Not as far as I know. We have suspended someone for breach of TOS, that's what we are meant to do. Doing as you suggest would be precipitous and (in my view) beyond our explicit remit. We've not discussed it because we've limited our discussions to the issue of addressing a breach of TOS.

Originally posted by jagar:

believing that the culprits would be any less welcome because we knew when all of SC knows can only be considered as condescending.

Really? That's the only interpretation?

Originally posted by jagar:

The presumed guilty parties should also have the chance to defend themselves in the forums

Well they can't can they - on account of being suspended. If you believe that such situations should result in us conducting some sort of public 'trial by forum' in such situations and enact the will of the community, then I'm afraid I don't agree. It would be a false peer judgment skewed by the agency of the articulate, the vehement and the present. As I said before, this is a moderated site. You know that. It's not a perfect system but it is the system. As moderators we are bound to try to find a pragmatic solutions that are necessarily compromises to the views held by individuals.