Should members who violate the TOS be "outed"?

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

03/02/2015 07:36:30 PM · #177

Originally posted by Spork99:

Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society.

Not even close. Administrative transgressions occur all the time and while these indeed are reviewed by an investigative body, the process involved has none of the trappings associated with Criminal Justice.

I have no idea what background you have relative to law enforcement, but mine has stretched over several decades and in this matter we will simply have to agree to disagree.

The matter was reviewed, corrective actions taken and from my personal perspective, no further action is warranted.

By the way, kudos to the SC for their handling of this matter.

Ray

Message edited by author 2015-03-02 19:48:39.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

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

03/02/2015 09:05:32 PM · #178

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by snaffles:
When I reffed Spiffy re the current Slippy discussion, it's only because he wants an In the Style of Strikeslip challenge. I'm not slagging him.

Susan, please do me a favor and click on that link and you'll see what I'm talking about; Spiffy is NOT the same as Yo_Spiff, okay? I was trying to clear up that confusion.

Ok, I didn't realize til now there was a

Spiffy as opposed to

Yo_Spiff. Hey, sometimes I referred to as

snaffy and nobody thinks anything else but

snaffles. So far as I know, anyway.

ETA: OMFG there IS a

snaffy?! How dare he!!! Boot him for daring to impinge upon my name! ;-0

Message edited by author 2015-03-02 21:06:51.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

03/02/2015 09:49:41 PM · #179

Originally posted by snaffles:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by snaffles:
When I reffed Spiffy re the current Slippy discussion, it's only because he wants an In the Style of Strikeslip challenge. I'm not slagging him.

Susan, please do me a favor and click on that link and you'll see what I'm talking about; Spiffy is NOT the same as Yo_Spiff, okay? I was trying to clear up that confusion.

Ok, I didn't realize til now there was a Spiffy as opposed to Yo_Spiff. Hey, sometimes I referred to as snaffy and nobody thinks anything else but snaffles. So far as I know, anyway.

ETA: OMFG there IS a snaffy?! How dare he!!! Boot him for daring to impinge upon my name! ;-0

ROTFLMAO!

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

03/03/2015 07:26:48 AM · #180

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society.

SC is more akin to nuclear regulators appointed as representatives to prevent meltdowns and privately ensure compliance among members sensitive to security and privacy. There is no promise or expectation of public disclosure for every action and, barring an event that actually affects others, all that matters is that the job gets done.

Hahâ�¦that's ridiculous.

If anything, the SC is currently akin to the "Secret Police" who can "disappear" people. They get the job done too, securely and privately.

03/03/2015 08:00:01 AM · #181

Originally posted by Spork99:

They get the job done too, securely and privately.

if that was true why am I still here?

RayEthier

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

03/03/2015 08:04:04 AM · #182

Originally posted by Spork99:

Hahâ�¦that's ridiculous.

If anything, the SC is currently akin to the "Secret Police" who can "disappear" people. They get the job done too, securely and privately.

The word "hyperbole" comes to mind.

Ray

nygold

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/03/2015 08:17:05 AM · #183

Originally posted by nam:

Originally posted by Elaine:
Although denied (and I am not saying I disbelieve the denial), much of this thread seems to have a tone of protection because the members involved are prominent, active members held in high regard. I'm not sure we need full disclosure, and should the decision be to protect people's privacy I am fine with that. But I'm not sure I agree that people's regard needs to be protected when intentionally breaking a rule.

I have followed the entire thread and did not get this idea.

Early on tanguera said, "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."

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

And later added, "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."

And Bear_Music said, "No, we want ALL members to be able to come back peacefully after suspensions and coexist happily ever after.

Underscores are MINE. To me, nothing any SC member has said implies in any way that the suspended members in this particular case are any more "special" than any other member - quite the contrary.

But then, there have been a lot of other assertions made along the way that I thought were, shall we say, misinterpretations of something someone else said.

ETA: I was putting this together while Bear_Music, tanguera, and scalvert were responding. Sorry for butting in.

If the person is such an active prominent member wouldn't we eventually figure out who it is?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/03/2015 08:45:53 AM · #184

Hey, remember that utensil guy? Spoon, knife, uh... some kind of tool... hadn't entered a photo in years and only came here to stir up trouble and fling wild accusations. Whatever happened to him?

BarbB

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/03/2015 08:51:04 AM · #185

Originally posted by Elaine:

So, "we" want these two members to come back because they participate. I am assuming "we" want them held in high esteem because they are long-time members. To me, this sounds like favoritism. Can't name them because others might not hold them in such high regard knowing they cheated.

This thread was meant to be a discussion. I would say the decision not to name those who are suspended was already made and this thread was not going to change that decision. So what was the real purpose of this?

I came to check that my little spray last night hadn't pushed this thread to 'rant' category. What I wrote was fuelled by a few glasses of wine, and a really bad internet connection..... 4 hours and at least one too many glasses of the grape until it was published. Your response is a perfect example of what I meant when I referred to, too much political correctness (pc). Do you have an independent idea that you'd like to see published? The royal 'we' is very boring to me..... How dare you suggest that 'Art' ever cheated! And Slrikeslip fell on a sword that he created. Their banter on this site made me laugh at times when I didn't think I could.
So.... back on topic, I've seen much on this site in my time here, and I'm retracting my request to site council to change my user name to ' Rose'. However I have to say that I found some of the DPC lives of Rose as highly amusing.....I even favoured a few stolen images.....before I knew they were not hers.... They were great images, and they dissappeared with her false profile.
Scalvert is one of the reason's that I joined DPC..... His photpgraphy is amazing... And he writes with the eloquence of a university lecturer... I'd take his class, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his perspective. Tangura is new to sc, has a proven track record as an amazing photographer on the world stage, and from all I know about her on social media, she is someone I'd love to meet in person. Bearmusic has been here forever, and is always the voice of reason, and occassionally puts up the odd image, that's better than ok!
Ahhhh topic..... Witch burning is a dangerous occupation.... SC HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OVER TIME, as far as I can see.
The purpose.... Again I say whitch burning is a dangerous occupation, unless you have ALL the facts. Gossiping is the other word that springs to my mind, and that is as dangerous as witch burning. I trust sc to make the right decisions on matters of DPC when they have all of the facts. We either trust them or we don't.... Mostly I'm interested in photography, and there are so many peeps I'd love to thank for their input.... I really, rarely give a shit about politics..... So I'd say to sc.... Keep doing what you do! I think you've done a pretty good job so far.....Cheers xo

Elaine

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

03/03/2015 12:41:53 PM · #186

Originally posted by BarbB:

Originally posted by Elaine:
So, "we" want these two members to come back because they participate. I am assuming "we" want them held in high esteem because they are long-time members. To me, this sounds like favoritism. Can't name them because others might not hold them in such high regard knowing they cheated.

This thread was meant to be a discussion. I would say the decision not to name those who are suspended was already made and this thread was not going to change that decision. So what was the real purpose of this?

I came to check that my little spray last night hadn't pushed this thread to 'rant' category. What I wrote was fuelled by a few glasses of wine, and a really bad internet connection..... 4 hours and at least one too many glasses of the grape until it was published. Your response is a perfect example of what I meant when I referred to, too much political correctness (pc). Do you have an independent idea that you'd like to see published? The royal 'we' is very boring to me..... How dare you suggest that 'Art' ever cheated! And Slrikeslip fell on a sword that he created. Their banter on this site made me laugh at times when I didn't think I could.

Not sure you were directing all of this at me, but it seems that way since you quoted my post. My original thought without the royal we: It seems that SC wants the two recent offenders to be able to come back and participate without any loss of esteem or regard because they are long-time important members. This has already been addressed.

I have not mentioned any members in any of my posts in this thread, so I am not sure if/why you are accusing me of making statements or judgments about Art or Strikeslip.

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

03/03/2015 01:02:36 PM · #187

i can't wait for these members to come back so we can speculate to them why they were gone.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

03/03/2015 01:40:48 PM · #188

Originally posted by scalvert:

Hey, remember that utensil guy? Spoon, knife, uh... some kind of tool... hadn't entered a photo in years and only came here to stir up trouble and fling wild accusations. Whatever happened to him?

The OP was asking for opinions on the matter. Now because someone says something on the matter you disagree with, they're deserving of getting called out, and by a SC member no less.

I guess the TOS are there more for some than others.

nygold

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/03/2015 02:23:25 PM · #189

Originally posted by Mike:

i can't wait for these members to come back so we can speculate to them why they were gone.

Sounds like we can have some fun we can play "Guess the excuse".

Im going with "The dog ate my password".

Message edited by author 2015-03-03 14:26:25.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/03/2015 03:16:54 PM · #190

we could also take bets on who the offending parties are. anyone care to make some odds?

nygold

Nikon D5000

03/03/2015 03:19:15 PM · #191

Originally posted by Mike:

we could also take bets on who the offending parties are. anyone care to make some odds?

I have an idea of one of them.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

03/03/2015 03:19:33 PM · #192

This is getting stupid, people.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

03/03/2015 03:27:46 PM · #193

Yup. Seems like everything has been said at this point. Maybe it's time to lock this down.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/03/2015 03:32:40 PM · #194

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This is getting stupid, people.

Oh, let them prove your point for you for another ten posts or so ... :-(

RyanW

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

03/03/2015 03:52:20 PM · #195

Originally posted by Elaine:

Originally posted by RyanW:

If someone is intentionally breaking the rules, and they are outed, there WILL be public backlash. They are knowingly trying to cheat the rest of the site users/members who are operating within the rules, in good faith.

I question why this is a bad thing. The key word being intentionally.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it will cause a lot of BAW BAW BAW for the SC to handle. Know what you're opening up if you're going to contemplate this.
There's the communal "we all agree, this guy/gal is a jerk, kick em", or the "47% think the SC is justified, 35% think the member is being persecuted unfairly and the remainder just say to keep taking pictures and move on". You'll *ALMOST* never get 100% agreement on anything, that's what happens when you give a sack of flesh and organs conscience and free will - they tend to use them.

In most cases, I inherently adopt the role of the devil's advocate; I like to look at all possible sides and make sure that before I jump in, I know what the consequences and alternatives are; and if others don't, i'll offer to inform them so they can make an informed decision.

I think, 95% of the time, the SC gets it right, and if they are suspending someone, they will usually give that person a chance to voice a rebuttal; if they feel shenanigans were afoot, they have the right to tell us, or not, it's part of the price of admission here, abiding by the TOS and the SC/Langdon's say-so, with reasonable exception. If you don't like it, bring up a change through the proper channels and see if it gains traction. Otherwise, accept that not everything is going to be tailored to suit *you* and move on with your life.

RyanW

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

03/03/2015 03:53:13 PM · #196

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is getting stupid, people.

Oh, let them prove your point for you for another ten posts or so ... :-(

as the first post that followed this, I hope that I am proving Bear wrong and not validating his assessment of the user base in this thread. :)