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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Where is Ubique?!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 272, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/14/2012 03:11:30 PM · #226
Originally posted by bvy:

Originally posted by Cuttooth:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules?


I do.


I do, too.

The more it's debated, the more benign the comment looks. And the more frustrating the situation gets. For me anyway...

Well why don't you direct your complaints to the person whose over-reaction precipitated this situation ... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. Since this sort of statement is explicitly prohibited by the posted rules, exactly what action do you think the SC should have taken, especially when the comment has been reported to us?

Next time, perhaps we should just "administratively edit" or hide the comment, without offering the commentor the option to modify it themselves ... yeah that would arouse lots less complaint — not ...
06/14/2012 03:13:43 PM · #227
im late to the party just read this whole thread should have left for the g/f 40 mins ago, and im now sad.

what a terrible shame that paul has left over what i thought a very true and fair comment. when i saw teh winning photo for imagination before even seeing who it was by i felt despondent at the dpc masses

paul is a wonderful photographer and i shall miss the interactions i had with him. i have a great pm from him when i asked an opinion for my alone challenge and i'll be keeping it makes me smile everytime i read it.

06/14/2012 03:15:38 PM · #228
Other questions have occurred to me. Would this comment have been reported if another person made it? Would it have been reported had it said something like "In my opinion, I do not think this image shows imagination" instead of being confrontational?

I don't know the history behind Paul and Margaret, but if I had received the comment as originally posted I would have been offended. I know I am in the minority, as most have said it is a good comment. Tell me my photo is crap BUT ALSO tell me why you think so. I can learn from that. Don't just say I don't have imagination or my photo is bad. How is that helpful?

I finished in 9th place in the Dead End challenge with just 2 comments, and one of those was a congrats. It seems there are less and less comments being made. I don't make many comments any more because of responses I have gotten from stating my opinion. Lack of comments is a bigger loss than the loss of a member, IMO. In the graphic design classes I took and in my camera club we are taught how to comment so that honest feedback can be given constructively. It is possible to tell someone their design/photo is bad without it seeming like an attack.
06/14/2012 03:26:05 PM · #229
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And, again, does anyone really dispute that the original comment required editing to conform to the forum rules?


I do.

How/why?


I have read that comment so many times and thought and thought on this and still don't think it breaks the guidelines. He was responding to her many requests for feedback. Okay the first sentence is a bit sarcastic but he ultimately told her what he honestly felt - for him, her entry didn't suit the challenge topic of imagination - he didn't even say the photograph is a bad photograph. The rest of it was more aimed at the rest of us who voted it blue...

And then... he was not asked, but told to revise it. That's also a problem, IMO.
06/14/2012 03:26:24 PM · #230
Originally posted by chaimelle:

I don't know the history behind Paul and Margaret, but if I had received the comment as originally posted I would have been offended.


But would you have reported it, and expected it to be corrected? I doubt it.

This general attitude of not being able to handle negativity reflects the recent shift of our society as a whole. Didn't win the game son? Here's a trophy anyways. We are breeding a thin skinned future population.

Sure, a negative comment (or not getting a trophy this year) may sting a bit, but it urges you to do better next time. Embrace it.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 15:27:52.
06/14/2012 03:26:59 PM · #231
Originally posted by chaimelle:

Lack of comments is a bigger loss than the loss of a member, IMO. In the graphic design classes I took and in my camera club we are taught how to comment so that honest feedback can be given constructively. It is possible to tell someone their design/photo is bad without it seeming like an attack.

It is, but here, as I found out early on, people don't want to hear negative critiques or get a below average vote. There's also the challenge aspect, with a description. During voting I'm a literalist when it comes to DNMCs. You want to see mailbox fill up quickly, tell them their image is DNMC with an explanation. The easiest way to avoid conflict, and make it easier on myself, is to simply dish out the vote and move on.

Same thing with any photo I don't like for any particular reason. Easier to simply vote and go to the right. It's amazing how quickly you'll receive a PM for a dissenting opinion.

CS
06/14/2012 03:32:41 PM · #232
This thread has gotten completely out of hand. Everyone is just letting emotions take over. I think everyone needs to stand back and give themselves a bit of time to cool down and think things over a bit more before responding.

IMO I think it is high time Steves yo_spiff suggestion was put into place. It is loooooong over due. What if someone wishes not to receive comments of any type at all on their image? What are they to do? If something they don't like is posted it is stuck there forever. If you chose to receive comments then you do it knowing you may receive a few that you may not like or agree with. Unless something is threatening or vulgar then I think the comment should stay. But as it stands you have no choice one way or the other.

06/14/2012 03:33:33 PM · #233
Originally posted by GeneralE:

... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. ...


This is where we differ.

"Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture.

I don't see this as a personal attack by any means. He's leaving an honest opinion of the photo, which is what she's said many times she'd like. This is exactly what he's stating in his first sentence.
06/14/2012 03:39:04 PM · #234
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Okay the first sentence is a bit sarcastic ...

Please re-read Forum Rules 9, 11, and (especially) 12. It was intentionally sarcastic and deliberately provocative -- he knew whose picture is was, and the sensibilities of the person about whom he was commenting.

Question: could he have made the same comment during voting, assuming the photo was really anonymous? If not, then those added words are the violation ... ANY comment which includes the word "you" is going to raise alert flags for me.
06/14/2012 03:40:46 PM · #235
I saw no problem with the first line, it explains the completely blunt appraisal. I think the comment comes of more harshly without it.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 16:48:38.
06/14/2012 03:43:06 PM · #236
Originally posted by GeneralE:

... ANY comment which includes the word "you" is going to raise alert flags for me.

"You did a splendid job on this photo"

?

Sorry, I'm only fueling the fire now... I'm ashamed of myself.
06/14/2012 03:43:08 PM · #237
Originally posted by Cuttooth:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. ...


This is where we differ.

"Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture.

I don't see this as a personal attack by any means. He's leaving an honest opinion of the photo, which is what she's said many times she'd like. This is exactly what he's stating in his first sentence.

What you quoted was a peamble on Paul's opinion {apparently unbelieving} of the photographer's attitude towards citicism. There is no reference to the photo at all, other than acknowledging ownership. The commments on the photo itself don't start until the next sentence.
06/14/2012 03:43:18 PM · #238
Paul is far from stupid and was well aware of how his words would be perceived by Margaret (I used bold in your quote). For people unaware of a previous thread this might seem ok but imho he knew exactly what buttons he was pressing. And, his 'critique' was given not in an 'imho' way but he actually implied that the people that voted it the blue were stupid!

I like(d) Paul, for his images and comments but feel he let himself down here.

I returned to dpc this year after almost 2 years away but (imho) I think dpc is a worse place now than it used to be and can see a steady fall from grace for it.

Originally posted by Cuttooth:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. ...


This is where we differ.

"Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture.

I don't see this as a personal attack by any means. He's leaving an honest opinion of the photo, which is what she's said many times she'd like. This is exactly what he's stating in his first sentence.


editid four spieling

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 15:45:33.
06/14/2012 03:43:38 PM · #239
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Okay the first sentence is a bit sarcastic ...

Please re-read Forum Rules 9, 11, and (especially) 12. It was intentionally sarcastic and deliberately provocative -- he knew whose picture is was, and the sensibilities of the person about whom he was commenting.

Question: could he have made the same comment during voting, assuming the photo was really anonymous? If not, then those added words are the violation ... ANY comment which includes the word "you" is going to raise alert flags for me.

I don't think that's sensible criteria and if the rule is against making comments directed at the photographer, then things like "You are amazingly talented" (which can and have been made without knowing who the photog was) should be stricken. I get comments directed at me fairly often (NOT like the example mentioned, unfortunately) - some good, some bad - BFD.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 15:44:47.
06/14/2012 03:44:37 PM · #240
Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... ANY comment which includes the word "you" is going to raise alert flags for me.

"You did a splendid job on this photo"

?

Sorry, I'm only fueling the fire now... I'm ashamed of myself.

As well you should be -- give yourself a five-minute timeout. ;-)
06/14/2012 03:45:37 PM · #241
Originally posted by GeneralE:

It was intentionally sarcastic and deliberately provocative


How can you possibly know that?
06/14/2012 03:46:53 PM · #242
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

"You are amazingly talented"

If I received such a comment you can bet it would raise alert flags for me! ;-)
06/14/2012 03:48:50 PM · #243
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cuttooth:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. ...


This is where we differ.

"Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture.

I don't see this as a personal attack by any means. He's leaving an honest opinion of the photo, which is what she's said many times she'd like. This is exactly what he's stating in his first sentence.

What you quoted was a peamble on Paul's opinion {apparently unbelieving} of the photographer's attitude towards citicism. There is no reference to the photo at all, other than acknowledging ownership. The commments on the photo itself don't start until the next sentence.


But the comment is the WHOLE comment. You have to read the WHOLE thing to hear what he is saying.
That's the way Paul writes... I can find some examples if you need me to.
06/14/2012 03:49:07 PM · #244
Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It was intentionally sarcastic and deliberately provocative


How can you possibly know that?

Let's say there exists a prepoderance of evidence to that effect ...
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

Paul is far from stupid and was well aware of how his words would be perceived by Margaret (I used bold in your quote). For people unaware of a previous thread this might seem ok but imho he knew exactly what buttons he was pressing. And, his 'critique' was given not in an 'imho' way but he actually implied that the people that voted it the blue were stupid!

I like(d) Paul, for his images and comments but feel he let himself down here.
06/14/2012 03:50:52 PM · #245
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

And, his 'critique' was given not in an 'imho' way but he actually implied that the people that voted it the blue were stupid!

And it's a fair opinion. I certainly thought they were. I don't see the problem with someone expressing that opinion if that's truly what it is.

CS
06/14/2012 03:52:02 PM · #246
Lets not forget.
What makes all this crazy is that the photo won the blue ribbon!

Its not like he picked on my poorly placing entry and laid into it...
this is the winner of the challenge.

When I win a ribbon- feel free leave the comment that Paul left, or something similar.

A "thinly veiled" comment needs to be removed from a blue ribbon entry?

I think I can get my head around the argument that SC doesn't want outsiders to see this post and think it is a hostile environment. If that's the reason... I don't know what to say.

I will say even if the comment is somehow construed as a latent attempt to bring down the spirits of the Blue ribbon winner instead of simply criticizing the photo itself, console yourself with.... Blue Ribbon(and we happen to have inside info that the winning of ribbons is very important to the receiver of the comment- it is not a secret)

eta: someone actually did call a recent photo of mine, which finished 125 out of 130 an "interesting blurry abomination" - That stuck with me and I appreciate the comment- I am still thinking about what the hell that means.

(and for the record, I left a decent comment on the imagination winning entry.)

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 16:03:45.
06/14/2012 03:53:06 PM · #247
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cuttooth:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... the first part of the comment was a direct and (as someone said) thinly-veiled comment on the integrity of the photographer, and had nothing to do with the photo itself. ...


This is where we differ.

"Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture.

I don't see this as a personal attack by any means. He's leaving an honest opinion of the photo, which is what she's said many times she'd like. This is exactly what he's stating in his first sentence.

What you quoted was a peamble on Paul's opinion {apparently unbelieving} of the photographer's attitude towards citicism. There is no reference to the photo at all, other than acknowledging ownership. The commments on the photo itself don't start until the next sentence.


But the comment is the WHOLE comment. You have to read the WHOLE thing to hear what he is saying.
That's the way Paul writes... I can find some examples if you need me to.

So, why didn't he make the same argument(s) you are making instead of picking up his marbles and going home? We require a waiver for anyone to sign up who's under thirteen years old, and AFAIK he hasn't submitted one ... (note: perhaps sarcasm is a genetic trait of people named "Paul" ...?)
06/14/2012 03:56:52 PM · #248
Perhaps YouTube should hire the SC to police comments.
[/paulcasm™] ;-)

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 15:57:42.
06/14/2012 04:00:07 PM · #249
I had not actually read the "other" thread until now. It certainly provides a backstory. Whoa Nelly! I dunno. Sometimes you are asking for it, I guess. Still, I can live with the idea that the comment was both deserved AND inappropriate.

Message edited by author 2012-06-14 16:00:42.
06/14/2012 04:02:20 PM · #250
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Still, I can live with the idea that the comment was both deserved AND inappropriate.

I don't recall anyone stating otherwise.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:59:51 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:59:51 AM EDT.