| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 11:50:28 PM · #251 |
Well, I have spent the last ten hours waiting for my explanation patiently liked asked by  Langdon's email. But now after reading this thread and all of it's progression I have finally decided to throw my "dirty laundry" out in the open too. At about 1pm(EST) this afternoon I received an email stating "Due to the level of vote manipulation that you took part in, we have decided to enact a suspension. The suspension will bar you from submitting to and voting in all challenges here at DPChallenge for a period of 4 weeks." All I could think was, "Wow...really??? For what reason?" So when I got home from work I sent my email and still I sit here waiting for an answer.
The only "dirty laundry" I can think of that might have some bearing on my suspension would be that my wife has voted on my submissions and I have voted on hers. She too received the email and still waits for a explanation as well. It's true we have, in the past(years ago)when we first started, gave each other 10s but have since been more reasonable with each other and we don't even talk about what we scored each other until the challenge is over. Out of my 6 front page photos, my wife only voted on two(9 and 8 both done in June 2008)and neither was a ribbon winner or in contention for a ribbon. Hell, for a whole year I was in Iraq and my wife didn't even participate on the site. It's her choice to participate and she doesn't become active to boost my numbers unfairly, nor do I boost her numbers. I have one yellow ribbon and she has none...add to that I am not even at the top of her statistical favorites(8). She is mine though but I have also consistently voted  ireneM and  timfythetoo high. Probably because I recognize their work. If this is really worthy of a suspension I'll gladly shut my mouth and move on...but still no answer.
Were the membership numbers not dropping fast enough for the site???
After so much grief in the past(threads like this) my wife came back to the site because she thought things were turning around. What a kick in the ass when she gets suspended less than a month after paying for her membership! Needless to say she has decided to give up on this. She has dealt with enough of the thread crap and my obsession with participating here so I don't blame her at all.
As for anyone who thinks this is some April Fools joke. It's not, even if it was I'd still feel the same way. We have been given our sentence by Langdon and the SC, tried and convicted, with no evidence presented to us in explanation.
FYI Bear_Music, I really didn't want to be invited to this type of party...maybe the going away party.
Ironically I posted my last challenge photo in the "Exit" challenge and it seems that it's the right way to head now... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:50:38 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am hoping they post the data before then, because in 15 minutes I have a freestudy image that I am rather fond of that I have to watch tank!!!! Then again if this latest sweep actually knocked out a few of the early voting trolls maybe I can wait until tomorrow to see my image bite the turf.
Originally posted by JokersSoul:
I am still hoping (even though it has been said that it isn't) that this is an April Fools joke. I guess we will know in 15 min when the "data" is posted. |
|
Since Karma said it is not an April Fool's joke, I'm tending to think it's not an April Fool's joke.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:52:49 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am hoping they post the data before then, because in 15 minutes I have a freestudy image that I am rather fond of that I have to watch tank!!!! Then again if this latest sweep actually knocked out a few of the early voting trolls maybe I can wait until tomorrow to see my image bite the turf.
Originally posted by JokersSoul:
I am still hoping (even though it has been said that it isn't) that this is an April Fools joke. I guess we will know in 15 min when the "data" is posted. |
|
Reckon the voting of this Free Study might be VERY slow given this little discussion. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:54:05 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by skewsme:
You know darn well he hasn't cast any votes for my images since the last friend-voting witch hunt. Evidently husbands and wives aren't allowed to share an aesthetic either. |
Sure he has: 14 times, to be exact, but they didn't show any suspicious trends. However, before that last roundup you received 36 votes of 7+ in a row, hence the high statistical rating. Lots of people share an appreciation for the same style, but it's exceedingly rare to all be consistently high (nobody's perfect). Interesting that he apparently hasn't shared the same aesthetic since then... |
lynchings have a way of doing that. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:54:33 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
With respect--are you here representing the SC, or are you here just to fan the flames? |
How is noting an attack on the SC fanning the flames? It certainly feels that way in this thread. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:54:53 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by vlado:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am hoping they post the data before then, because in 15 minutes I have a freestudy image that I am rather fond of that I have to watch tank!!!! Then again if this latest sweep actually knocked out a few of the early voting trolls maybe I can wait until tomorrow to see my image bite the turf.
Originally posted by JokersSoul:
I am still hoping (even though it has been said that it isn't) that this is an April Fools joke. I guess we will know in 15 min when the "data" is posted. |
|
Reckon the voting of this Free Study might be VERY slow given this little discussion. |
I'm tempted to do a 100% comment effort, instead: "unwilling to vote and risk statistical analysis-based banishment" |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:55:37 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by vlado:
Reckon the voting of this Free Study might be VERY slow given this little discussion. |
This discussion would benefit greatly if everybody would go cast some votes ... and as a bonus, you have explicit permission to give a vote of 10 to mine ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:55:59 PM · #258 |
So, I know I am new here, and therefore nobody is going to take what I say seriously...
But I really think this should be an issue between the SC and the members who are accused (wrongly or not).
Everyone else should stop posting. Really, it is none of our business.
Yes, people care about people who are concerned in this matter. Yes, this makes you want to defend them. And yes, this is a perfectly acceptable impulse.
But do you really think you are making a difference by mindlessly yelling and putting the SC on the defensive, who have OBVIOUSLY put a lot of time and consideration into this. Do you really think you have something new to say, that hasn't already been said in the 10 pages that have already been posted?
I think not. And every further negative comment is just adding to the stifling negative environment that you are complaining about. YOU are making it more negative.
Sigh..... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:58:13 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I'm tempted to do a 100% comment effort, instead: "unwilling to vote and risk statistical analysis-based banishment" |
I'm pretty sure your voting record has already been analyzed -- apparently you "passed" ... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:59:10 PM · #260 |
| Kinda tempted to ignore this thread. To be honest there's a lot of inflammatory remarks from both sides. But I also don't want to miss anything since this is an administrator announcement thread... I suppose I'm going to be off on a road trip for the next few days so its a moot point anyways. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:59:32 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
YOU are making it more negative. |
No... YOU are ¡ ;P |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:59:46 PM · #262 |
Btw, I still appreciate the SC's efforts, and I still think anyone who was suspended should have a right to make an appeal.
I'd also like to say, not to kick anyone in the teeth here, that I'm really surprised (really) that husbands and wives, etc., are voting for each other. I understand the impulse to be supportive, but knock it off. Just skip that vote and then you won't have to worry about being "fair" or not. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:00:03 AM · #263 |
But this is how it works here, Has always been hatfield vs mccoy. It will blow over eventually at least partially anyhow.
Originally posted by Fiora:
So, I know I am new here, and therefore nobody is going to take what I say seriously...
But I really think this should be an issue between the SC and the members who are accused (wrongly or not).
Everyone else should stop posting. Really, it is none of our business.
Yes, people care about people who are concerned in this matter. Yes, this makes you want to defend them. And yes, this is a perfectly acceptable impulse.
But do you really think you are making a difference by mindlessly yelling and putting the SC on the defensive, who have OBVIOUSLY put a lot of time and consideration into this. Do you really think you have something new to say, that hasn't already been said in the 10 pages that have already been posted?
I think not. And every further negative comment is just adding to the stifling negative environment that you are complaining about. YOU are making it more negative.
Sigh..... |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:00:44 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by vlado:
Reckon the voting of this Free Study might be VERY slow given this little discussion. |
This discussion would benefit greatly if everybody would go cast some votes ... and as a bonus, you have explicit permission to give a vote of 10 to mine ... ;-) |
So it's ok to vote you a 10 if we think it's yours but not someone else? Wow thats very arrogant. And yes I see the smiley but I don't believe much of what I'm reading in this thread anyway, so I expect that doesn't mean what it is suppose to either.
Matt
And as far as voting...........no thanks I'm done doing that here as well as entering challenges. I truly hope every member walks away from this place taking their wallet with them.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 00:02:59. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:01:37 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Langdon specifically asked you to discuss it via ticket... |
I missed this emphasis in his message to me. |
I did respond via ticket, and I was told the specific accusation, which I've brought up here. This is just another spurious accusation I have to sit through until I can see the actual data.
I just want to see the data, the reasoning, behind this decision. |
As would I, although I'd prefer a more sweeping and convincing form of damage control. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:03:39 AM · #266 |
This very well could be the first Admin Announcement Thread to make it into the Rant section..
Still wondering where the hell is Art with the popcorn? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:04:00 AM · #267 |
| It sounds like the SC is picking the flypoop out of the pepper and they can't really tell the difference. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:05:55 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, I still appreciate the SC's efforts, and I still think anyone who was suspended should have a right to make an appeal. |
They do, and did (via the Ticket system), and then, instead of waiting for discussion/resolution, themselves brought the issue here to the public forum, despite a specific request not to do so. The site didn't "out" or accuse anyony publicly.
I think I need to check out for the evening -- I have to be at work at 5:30 am.
MattO: Yes, it's completely a joke. In case you didn't notice, I gave no hint of which photo I wanted you to vote on, and no, my name is not in the title ... |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:05:59 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
Do you really think you have something new to say, that hasn't already been said in the 10 pages that have already been posted?
Sigh..... |
if we were to follow this, no-one could say anything since everything said in this thread is already been said many times in history of this site.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:08:05 AM · #270 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, I still appreciate the SC's efforts, and I still think anyone who was suspended should have a right to make an appeal.
I'd also like to say, not to kick anyone in the teeth here, that I'm really surprised (really) that husbands and wives, etc., are voting for each other. I understand the impulse to be supportive, but knock it off. Just skip that vote and then you won't have to worry about being "fair" or not. |
I did knock it off... years ago... in respect to the site. Interesting that scalvert would bring that up, not that he's attacking me or anything.
would really like some data soon...may have to call it a night though |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:08:31 AM · #271 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I'm tempted to do a 100% comment effort, instead: "unwilling to vote and risk statistical analysis-based banishment" |
I'm pretty sure your voting record has already been analyzed -- apparently you "passed" ... |
and yet, apparently, there is no way to know when voting high scores for images/aesthetics/styles/genres that please me might suddenly add up to the the critical mass for suspension, nor are any explanations or assurances that this would not happen forthcoming....
with the information provided thus far, one is left to assume that repetitive high scoring votes cast anonymously challenge to challenge on a talented, consistent photographer's work will eventually result in a judgement of unfair voting and subsequent suspension |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:08:58 AM · #272 |
I am very saddened by all of this. Don "Posthumous" has been an inspiration for so many on this site, myself included. To have him (and others) called on for the way they vote is just nonsensical to me. Are there rules in place to allow the SC to suspend members without an exact accounting/explanation of why they are being called on? It just does not feel right that this should happen so arbitrarily.
My husband also posts to this site. I will tell you that most of the time I have no idea how he votes on my images. I sometimes vote on his but I know I am fair. Postuhumous cares about his votes the way I care about mine. I KNOW he does - obviously everyone else here does too. I don't even have to see the numbers to know this is not fair but I hope they are posted soon so that a fair reconciliation can be agreed on. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:16:05 AM · #273 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And really, Richard ( Scarbrd), the Abstractists aren't collusionists.
|
My name is David.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:19:35 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Melethia:
And really, Richard ( Scarbrd), the Abstractists aren't collusionists.
|
My name is David.
Carry on. |
I was wondering if she was calling you Richard because it's long for another name, or if it was a case that she simply called you the wrong name.
Matt |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 12:27:38 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Melethia:
And really, Richard ( Scarbrd), the Abstractists aren't collusionists.
|
My name is David.
Carry on. |
LOL! Ooops - I knew that. I was responding to another post in my head at the same time. Yeah, that's it. Or I'd just seen a post from Yanko elsewhere. (Really, I do know you're David!) |
|
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: 03/10/2025 06:21:47 PM EDT.
