DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Lockdown
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 180, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/04/2015 02:32:45 AM · #1
There was a discussion going on about how to deal with TOS violations, the powers that be who started that thread have now made it disappear.

One of the SC posted this: "Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that."

I have a real problem with this protectionist attitude, it doesn't corespond at all with the values held dear to those of us who live and grew up in a democracy. We are saying that someone who is popular is getting protection because of that popularity, they victimized another member or members but because they are important they get to keep their anonymity.

This thread will probably get locked down because it could harm the popular person, if it does I'll copy it and post it again until they kick me out, without anonymity of course.
03/04/2015 06:31:29 AM · #2
Let ne be the first one to disagree with you.

Yours is mere speculation as to the reason why the SC rendered its decision and contrary to what you might believe, they are under no obligation whatsoever to tell you squat.

I grew up in a democracy and still live in one and amazingly this decision does not offend my values in the least, just as I don't expect my government to give me every single detail as to how they arrived at a decision. In the grand scheme of things, what was done in this instance has no bearing whatsoever on my real life, my life in DPC and my appreciation of others in this venue.

Perhaps you could ask how many support your views and work from there.

Ray

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 06:32:52.
03/04/2015 06:57:01 AM · #3
Originally posted by jagar:

There was a discussion going on about how to deal with TOS violations, the powers that be who started that thread have now made it disappear.
...

It's still there ... pretty sure anyway. It was in my profile under last forums posted to list, and I'm able to navigate to it. It's also visible under the Forums / General Discussion area.
03/04/2015 07:03:44 AM · #4
"Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that."


My question is if this is a true statement then why start a thread asking to "out" them?

That would be utterly irresponsible.
03/04/2015 07:15:25 AM · #5
I'm not sure how things work in Canada Ray but over here if someone's guilt is hidden because of that persons popularity or importance it would be called a scandal. You say in the great scheme of things, we pay our dues here Ray we contribute and we share, it is a community and as such certain basic principles should be respected, they haven't been.

I have been here long enough to know that SC nearly always do a good job, I've also been here long enough to know that the majority wouldn't go against their opinion. I am just emphasizing the unfairness of this particular case and unless SC want to go against the basic principles of freedom of speech, I have the right to do so.

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 07:17:01.
03/04/2015 07:19:23 AM · #6
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jagar:

There was a discussion going on about how to deal with TOS violations, the powers that be who started that thread have now made it disappear.
...

It's still there ... pretty sure anyway. It was in my profile under last forums posted to list, and I'm able to navigate to it. It's also visible under the Forums / General Discussion area.


Yes, it's still there. The SC just decided that they didn't really want people discussing the issue, so they locked it.
03/04/2015 07:22:15 AM · #7
Originally posted by RayEthier:

... just as I don't expect my government to give me every single detail as to how they arrived at a decisionů.


That kind of acceptance of authority at its word is all too common and disturbing.

03/04/2015 07:27:49 AM · #8
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jagar:

There was a discussion going on about how to deal with TOS violations, the powers that be who started that thread have now made it disappear.
...

It's still there ... pretty sure anyway. It was in my profile under last forums posted to list, and I'm able to navigate to it. It's also visible under the Forums / General Discussion area.


Yes, it's still there. The SC just decided that they didn't really want people discussing the issue, so they locked it.

Yep. Knew they locked in ... I thought they actually hid it (which has happened before) based on jagar's post.
03/04/2015 07:34:05 AM · #9
Originally posted by nygold:

"Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that."


My question is if this is a true statement then why start a thread asking to "out" them?

That would be utterly irresponsible.


I agree why start the thread in the first place...also how can this do real damage in the real world, we are not famous people, we are nobodies really in the scheme of things!

Anyway pretty sure I know who it is!
03/04/2015 07:35:41 AM · #10
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

... just as I don't expect my government to give me every single detail as to how they arrived at a decisionů.


That kind of acceptance of authority at its word is all too common and disturbing.


Unless you live in Russia or Burma.

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 07:36:18.
03/04/2015 07:37:44 AM · #11
Originally posted by nygold:

"Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that."


My question is if this is a true statement then why start a thread asking to "out" them?

That would be utterly irresponsible.


that part got me too. I was going to go back and reread that thread to see if i missed something. What is this "real, tangible damage" that would be done?

03/04/2015 07:40:27 AM · #12
Are you serious of starting this issue again when it has been beaten with a dead horse?
The original thread is still there

All the thoughts, opionions have been asked and saught out, the SC did a faboulous job of taking care of the issue and even addressing of WHY it happened.

WHO CARES of who did it, and if you knew who did it WHO CARES!

There are more important things to worry about instead of bashing of who did what when where how.
This thread sickens me, It happened, it was dealt with, it is in the past MOVE ON

Just reminds me of an adult temper tantrum because no one heard what they had to say

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 07:48:53.
03/04/2015 07:48:25 AM · #13
Originally posted by jgirl57:

Are you serious of starting this issue again when it has been beaten with a dead horse?
The original thread is still there

All the thoughts, opionions have been asked and saught out, the SC did a faboulous job of taking care of the issue and even addressing of WHY it happened.

WHO CARES of who did it, and if you knew who did it WHO CARES!

There are more important things to worry about instead of bashing of who did what when where how.
This thread sickens me, It happened, it was dealt with, it is in the past MOVE ON


He has the right to express his opinion and concerns. If it sickens you, ignore it.
03/04/2015 08:03:05 AM · #14
I mostly agree with John regarding transparency, with the precision that I believe it is really important for major violations (I don't think it is that much a problem if minor ones are kept confidential).

Regarding this case, while I appreciate that some information was given, I still can't really understand the decisions that have been taken. If I summarize my understanding, we have:
1) one person that 'cheated' in one challenge, because he/she was affected by his/her own score and lost his/her nerves
2) another person that 'cheated' in many challenges, during more than a year

For the first person, while I obviously don't approve the behavior, I can understand it. Anyone can get upset at some point and do something stupid. It is very human, after all. That person got suspended 2 months.

Regarding the second person, it is something else entirely: the cheating was targeted, well-thought of, organized, performed many times over a long period. It really looks like a much, much bigger violation of the TOS than the first person. Yet that person got suspended 3 months, which is a very similar penalty.

Am I missing something? Why a person that acted poorly just one time due to poor anger management got more or less the same punishment than someone who cheated continuously during such a long period of time? Are there other parameters than haven't been disclosed that could help understanding this?
03/04/2015 08:20:09 AM · #15
I just dont understand why they initially ask if they should out the person and then reveal at the end as if outing them would ruin them and they arent going to do that.

we arent being told everything.

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 08:20:55.
03/04/2015 08:21:04 AM · #16
What most people seem to forget is that this is not a democracy.

We did not elect langdon. We did not elect the sc.

We agreed to the rules of the site.

It is their right to determine punishment as they see fit.

Whether or not I'm in agreement with the terms really doesn't matter. It's not my site.

HOWEVER:

1. I see this site council as a particularly fair, Openminded group.

2. I have NOT seen them playing favorites. And I don't worry that they will.

3. I think they look carefully at situations and do their best to come up with something that makes sense.

It was kind of them to let us have some input on this. It went a long time. People got to speak their mind.

When they asked us to let it go, why can we not respect that? We did not sign up for a Democratic site. It was never listed as one and never falsely advertised as one.

I recommend that we let the extremely dead horse rest in peace and go back to taking photos.

Please

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 08:23:06.
03/04/2015 08:21:16 AM · #17
Originally posted by RKT:


He has the right to express his opinion and concerns. If it sickens you, ignore it.


Indeed for sure you are so correct, my aplogies folks esp. to ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' jagar

You are right in your "freedom of speech"
I will plan on ignorning :-))

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 08:25:52.
03/04/2015 08:24:45 AM · #18
Originally posted by jagar:

I'm not sure how things work in Canada Ray but over here if someone's guilt is hidden because of that persons popularity or importance it would be called a scandal. You say in the great scheme of things, we pay our dues here Ray we contribute and we share, it is a community and as such certain basic principles should be respected, they haven't been.

I have been here long enough to know that SC nearly always do a good job, I've also been here long enough to know that the majority wouldn't go against their opinion. I am just emphasizing the unfairness of this particular case and unless SC want to go against the basic principles of freedom of speech, I have the right to do so.


Who said they were popular?
03/04/2015 08:26:58 AM · #19
There is no temper tantrum here, no anger whatsoever, I just strongly believe that this has been dealt with in a way which violates fairness.

I also believe that DPC as a community is strong enough to overcome and to forgive such things, believing we would never get over this is rather belittling for those who don't know and for the community in general.

I'm on a phone so sorry for mistakes.
03/04/2015 08:29:18 AM · #20
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by jagar:

I'm not sure how things work in Canada Ray but over here if someone's guilt is hidden because of that persons popularity or importance it would be called a scandal. You say in the great scheme of things, we pay our dues here Ray we contribute and we share, it is a community and as such certain basic principles should be respected, they haven't been.

I have been here long enough to know that SC nearly always do a good job, I've also been here long enough to know that the majority wouldn't go against their opinion. I am just emphasizing the unfairness of this particular case and unless SC want to go against the basic principles of freedom of speech, I have the right to do so.


Who said they were popular?


More infamous than popular.
03/04/2015 08:29:33 AM · #21
Originally posted by gyaban:

I mostly agree with John regarding transparency, with the precision that I believe it is really important for major violations (I don't think it is that much a problem if minor ones are kept confidential).

Regarding this case, while I appreciate that some information was given, I still can't really understand the decisions that have been taken. If I summarize my understanding, we have:
1) one person that 'cheated' in one challenge, because he/she was affected by his/her own score and lost his/her nerves
2) another person that 'cheated' in many challenges, during more than a year

For the first person, while I obviously don't approve the behavior, I can understand it. Anyone can get upset at some point and do something stupid. It is very human, after all. That person got suspended 2 months.

Regarding the second person, it is something else entirely: the cheating was targeted, well-thought of, organized, performed many times over a long period. It really looks like a much, much bigger violation of the TOS than the first person. Yet that person got suspended 3 months, which is a very similar penalty.

Am I missing something? Why a person that acted poorly just one time due to poor anger management got more or less the same punishment than someone who cheated continuously during such a long period of time? Are there other parameters than haven't been disclosed that could help understanding this?


Incorrect, go re-read what Bear posted.
03/04/2015 08:37:44 AM · #22
Originally posted by Cory:



go re-read what Bear posted.


care to narrow that down?

Message edited by author 2015-03-04 08:37:57.
03/04/2015 08:46:02 AM · #23
Bear didn't explain anything he gave us a hypothetical.

Paul on the other hand said this.

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.
03/04/2015 08:52:45 AM · #24
Originally posted by vawendy:



I recommend that we let the extremely dead horse rest in peace and go back to taking photos.

Please


where's the fun in that :)
03/04/2015 08:57:47 AM · #25
Originally posted by vawendy:



I recommend that we let the extremely dead horse rest in peace and go back to taking photos.

Please


Who killed the horse ? Why ? How ? It is not wrong to ask.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 09:54:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 09:54:22 AM EDT.