| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 01:01:01 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Prash:
I wanted to communicate in all good faith that I did not violate any rules. Only that I dont have any proof saying that. I thought just the fact that I am standing up with my mistake will say a bit about whether I could do that or not. |
hey man, dont worry about it. a DQ doesnt mean somebody cheated.
i've got banned from entering challenges for a few weeks in the past due to technical reasons.
you get used to it. besides, the people dont really care as much as they appear to be - i mean the DQs |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:20:43 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I can see it in this case; intentional infraction or not, he'd already been "caught". |
No offense, but I did not cheat. I know that with all of my conscience. A mis-placed original does not make be a thief or a cheater. If thats how majority of people feel here, I will be happy to donate the rest of my membership to someone deserving and leave for good. |
Prash, you need to lighten up. Nobody is accusing you of cheating. You made a mistake of deleting your original, and I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future. I've been DQ'd twice for inadvertent rules violations but I just learn from it and move on to the next challenge trying to be more careful. Is there any difference between an SC DQ and a self-DQ? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:30:42 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by boyd2000:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I can see it in this case; intentional infraction or not, he'd already been "caught". |
No offense, but I did not cheat. I know that with all of my conscience. A mis-placed original does not make be a thief or a cheater. If thats how majority of people feel here, I will be happy to donate the rest of my membership to someone deserving and leave for good. |
Prash, you need to lighten up. Nobody is accusing you of cheating. You made a mistake of deleting your original, and I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future. I've been DQ'd twice for inadvertent rules violations but I just learn from it and move on to the next challenge trying to be more careful. Is there any difference between an SC DQ and a self-DQ? |
Thanks. But theres one difference. An SC-DQ doesnt paint your profile page in brown. And if there was no difference, the ABLE SC would have allowed me to self-DQ. I wasnt given a chance or benefit of doubt.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 01:30:51. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:32:52 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by boyd2000:
Is there any difference between an SC DQ and a self-DQ? |
Really, the main difference is that a "regular" DQ is displayed at the end of the challenge results, while a "Self-DQ" is removed altogether. It was primarily instituted when some photographers found that their models no longer felt OK about the image being posted as an entry, and wished it withdrawn. For simplification and objectivity, we made it so no resaon was required, but strict limits being placed on its use to avoid people using it to manipulate their overall average. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:37:52 AM · #30 |
| Tell us how you processed the photo to get this effect. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:40:48 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
She's not saying that you got caught cheating, she's saying that you got caught without your original. That's why the word caught is in "...". |
Exactly :)
I don't for a minute doubt that it was an honest mistake. Unfortunately, it was a mistake that led to a rule infraction. It sucks, but it happens :( |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:53:26 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by dzone1:
Tell us how you processed the photo to get this effect. |
No processing except what I mentioned at submission: crop/brightness/contrast/desaturation/sharpened/resize for web.
The shallow DOF is as it came from the camera.. teh lens used was Sigma 70-300mm DG APO in macro mode.. I returned it saving for more gear. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:54:55 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by boyd2000:
Is there any difference between an SC DQ and a self-DQ? |
Really, the main difference is that a "regular" DQ is displayed at the end of the challenge results, while a "Self-DQ" is removed altogether. It was primarily instituted when some photographers found that their models no longer felt OK about the image being posted as an entry, and wished it withdrawn. For simplification and objectivity, we made it so no resaon was required, but strict limits being placed on its use to avoid people using it to manipulate their overall average. |
Not that it matters now, but I did give a reason. Its ok. Thanks. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:56:03 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
She's not saying that you got caught cheating, she's saying that you got caught without your original. That's why the word caught is in "...". |
Exactly :)
I don't for a minute doubt that it was an honest mistake. Unfortunately, it was a mistake that led to a rule infraction. It sucks, but it happens :( |
I understand. Just wanted to clarify. If I indeed attempted a violation, I wont be defending it here.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:00:52 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Not that it matters now, but I did give a reason. Its ok. Thanks. |
I know, but once someone else has requested validation, all the usual rules (including being able to provide an original) apply, and if any are broken, a Self-DQ is not allowed.
Notice that here (unlike the "other" current DQ thread) the problem is that we are applying an objective rule strictly according to the written guidelines, and still it's a "problem" ... |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:06:12 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Prash:
Not that it matters now, but I did give a reason. Its ok. Thanks. |
I know, but once someone else has requested validation, all the usual rules (including being able to provide an original) apply, and if any are broken, a Self-DQ is not allowed.
Notice that here (unlike the "other" current DQ thread) the problem is that we are applying an objective rule strictly according to the written guidelines, and still it's a "problem" ... |
Just like when someone forgets to change the time at daylight savings and ends up with an entry that says it was taken half an hour after rollover. That's technically impossible, the SC knows what's happened, I'm sure they hate having to DQ, but that's the rule and when it's a black and white rule like that they have to apply it, or risk having folks make up whatever they can to explain their rule-breakage. :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:33:40 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Just like when someone forgets to change the time at daylight savings and ends up with an entry that says it was taken half an hour after rollover. That's technically impossible, the SC knows what's happened, I'm sure they hate having to DQ, but that's the rule and when it's a black and white rule like that they have to apply it, or risk having folks make up whatever they can to explain their rule-breakage. :) |
Hmmm ... you rang? :)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:37:14 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I can see it in this case; intentional infraction or not, he'd already been "caught". I'd still like to clarify the comment that one can't request self-DQ for rules violations, though.
I'll use my wildlife entry;
On a Tuesday I shot a couple hundred swan/goose/duck shots then later that evening the Wildlife challenge was announced so I went back Wednesday and shot a few hundred more.
Supposing I'd discovered during the week that I'd accidently entered one from the Tuesday folder instead of Wednesday's. Could I not remove it from voting, since it shouldn't have been there, but was a totally honest mistake and not an attempt to circumvent the date rule? |
This sounds like a thinly veiled confession. SS - er, I mean SC, raid her portfolio! She is clearly guilty of something!
hahaaaa. This place is lively with DQ discussions this week. DPC needs a new tagline: "Not reality. Virtuality!" ...you know, like truTV's new slogan. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:43:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Just like when someone forgets to change the time at daylight savings and ends up with an entry that says it was taken half an hour after rollover. That's technically impossible, the SC knows what's happened, I'm sure they hate having to DQ, but that's the rule and when it's a black and white rule like that they have to apply it, or risk having folks make up whatever they can to explain their rule-breakage. :) |
Hmmm ... you rang? :) |
Oops! 0-:) I didn't remember whooooo, just thought I remembered it happening. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:45:25 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I can see it in this case; intentional infraction or not, he'd already been "caught". I'd still like to clarify the comment that one can't request self-DQ for rules violations, though.
I'll use my wildlife entry;
On a Tuesday I shot a couple hundred swan/goose/duck shots then later that evening the Wildlife challenge was announced so I went back Wednesday and shot a few hundred more.
Supposing I'd discovered during the week that I'd accidently entered one from the Tuesday folder instead of Wednesday's. Could I not remove it from voting, since it shouldn't have been there, but was a totally honest mistake and not an attempt to circumvent the date rule? |
This sounds like a thinly veiled confession. SS - er, I mean SC, raid her portfolio! She is clearly guilty of something!
hahaaaa. This place is lively with DQ discussions this week. DPC needs a new tagline: "Not reality. Virtuality!" ...you know, like truTV's new slogan. |
Shush you, they haven't even answered the question yet, they don't have time to check me out further ;) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:47:03 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Shush you, they haven't even answered the question yet, they don't have time to check me out further ;) |
I have time. I've requested they deputize me and issue a warrant. Your days of crime are numbered, girl! |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:53:10 AM · #42 |
| And just what number would that be? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:13:07 AM · #43 |
| 342. I'm slow and methodical. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:28:41 AM · #44 |
| Phew, that means the statute of limitations will have expired :D |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:45:08 AM · #45 |
| I got DQ'd under the literal artwork rule for a photo I took of the Statue of Limitations. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 07:52:09 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Just like when someone forgets to change the time at daylight savings and ends up with an entry that says it was taken half an hour after rollover. That's technically impossible, the SC knows what's happened, I'm sure they hate having to DQ, but that's the rule and when it's a black and white rule like that they have to apply it, or risk having folks make up whatever they can to explain their rule-breakage. :) |
Hmmm ... you rang? :) |
Oops! 0-:) I didn't remember whooooo, just thought I remembered it happening. |
Twice! *hides face*
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:24:40 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I got DQ'd under the literal artwork rule for a photo I took of the Statue of Limitations. |
That photo must have expired because I can't find it anywhere. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:24:38 AM · #48 |
Camera: $799
PC: $1399
Year's subscription to DPC: $23
Publically trying to Self-DQ five minutes before you get DQ'd...
Priceless.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:53:58 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Camera: $799
PC: $1399
Year's subscription to DPC: $23
Publically trying to Self-DQ five minutes before you get DQ'd...
Priceless. |
Roflmao |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:00:37 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Year's subscription to DPC: $23 |
I want to know how you get a discounted rate on a year's subscription? :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/10/2025 05:14:11 AM EDT.
