| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2009 11:07:36 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Lotsa stuff.
~Terry |
Well wooohoooo, thanks for the detailed response!! I appreciate it although I may disagree with some of your points but who cares.
Alright, a draft? Lets start with my earlier statement at 11/18/2009 05:21:10 PM. Is this an unreasonable measure?
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 23:08:10. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:13:33 PM · #152 |
 Ivo why don't you just make the code of ethics, post on your profile and spend your time forwarding all of the newbies or anyone you see who's maybe missing it, to your code of ethics, and then they will be all straightened out.. You don't need anyone's permission to do this... And, I think after all the hours you've spent on debating the issue, at some point it has to sink in... I just don't see you getting what you need out of this thread... So, to heck with it and carry on as planned... Write down what is important to you, lead by example and I'm sure others will follow your lead... I really do !!! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:30:25 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Ivo why don't you just make the code of ethics, post on your profile and spend your time forwarding all of the newbies or anyone you see who's maybe missing it, to your code of ethics, and then they will be all straightened out.. You don't need anyone's permission to do this... And, I think after all the hours you've spent on debating the issue, at some point it has to sink in... I just don't see you getting what you need out of this thread... So, to heck with it and carry on as planned... Write down what is important to you, lead by example and I'm sure others will follow your lead... I really do !!! |
I'm okay with doing some work but it is not MY CODE of ethics!!! As a matter of fact, I don't want it on my profile as it would appear as IVO's crusade and that would hurt the purpose as I recognize my unpopularity. I do not wish fabricate my forum popularity for the purpose of marketing "IVO's code". That direction does not interest me at all. I'd like to see this CODE on the "Community" tab displayed much in the same manner as tutorials. This way it can be referenced and updated as issues arrive and dynamics change.
I am starting this off with my prior statement reagrding challenge submissions at 11/18/2009 05:21:10 PM.
Is this a reasonable statement?
BTW: It does not need to be called a CODE OF ETHICS. It can be called "Bob" for all I care. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:50:34 PM · #154 |
This entire thread looks like Ivo's crusade. No offense Ivo but you are sliding down the hill in an uphill battle. In other words you are wasting your time, why don't you go get some sleep and try again another day.
Originally posted by Ivo:
As a matter of fact, I don't want it on my profile as it would appear as IVO's crusade |
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:11:29 AM · #155 |
Ivo why don't you concentrate now your efforts to write a draft, as it was already suggested, instead of wasting time on silly discussions and arguments?
That would give people something objective to work with, and get them engaged in a positive way. Certainly, you'd be better off to get a buy-in of the community to your original proposal. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:22:49 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
This entire thread looks like Ivo's crusade. No offense Ivo but you are sliding down the hill in an uphill battle. In other words you are wasting your time, why don't you go get some sleep and try again another day.
Originally posted by Ivo:
As a matter of fact, I don't want it on my profile as it would appear as IVO's crusade |
|
Agreed. This seems like a 'personal' interest on your part, ivo. Create a mission statement of some sort and remember that it is YOUR mission statement. Whether people what to attach themselves to it or not would remain to be seen, but from what I can gather, there won't be many. While you feel your fight is just, in the end it might not make a difference with people who have bigger problems in the world outside of DPC, REAL problems.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:28:53 AM · #157 |
| I admire IVO for trying to make a difference. If only more people would do so. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 04:53:10 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
BTW: It does not need to be called a CODE OF ETHICS. It can be called "Bob" for all I care. |
Lithium. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 07:03:06 AM · #159 |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 07:19:38 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Lotsa stuff.
~Terry |
Well wooohoooo, thanks for the detailed response!! I appreciate it although I may disagree with some of your points but who cares.
Alright, a draft? Lets start with my earlier statement at 11/18/2009 05:21:10 PM. Is this an unreasonable measure? |
First, let me say I've been following and commenting on this since the 47 steps thread.
I'd like to thank Terry for the thoughtful and patient response.
Ivo, it seems even in acknowledging Terry's point, you still can't help with a splash of vitriol "but who cares". I think your idea would be gaining a lot more traction if you tried proofing your posts for bitterness.
And for the record, I agree, a code of ethics is a great idea. I've said before, this is a "challenge" site, and what purpose is it if folks circumvent the challenge aspect of it?
- Joe |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 08:24:43 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And for those who say that  Nuzzer cheated the voters, then I say the voters cheated whilst voting this image.
Right???.......8>) |
I think there is a huge difference between your entry and nuzzer’s. You can honestly say the Challenge didn’t state B&W photo. What can nuzzer say, the challenge didn’t say take 47 steps from the door of your home?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 09:11:08 AM · #162 |
How unethical is it to barge in on someone's thread and show off your own pictures?
 |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 09:39:17 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And for those who say that Nuzzer cheated the voters, then I say the voters cheated whilst voting this image.
Right???.......8>) |
Originally posted by Scholten:
I think there is a huge difference between your entry and nuzzer’s. You can honestly say the Challenge didn’t state B&W photo. What can nuzzer say, the challenge didn’t say take 47 steps from the door of your home? |
There *is* a huge difference in the entries.
BUT.....what's the difference between his ignoring the challenge details, and the voters who said DNMC, and "Not the Spirit of the Challenge" on my entry?
They ignored the challenge details, too, right?
How many times have we seen a blue ribbon winner that really wasn't quite what it should have been, theme-wise, but it was such a spectacular image that it won anyway?
Ethics roll both ways, do they not?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 09:39:22 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
... I don't want it on my profile as it would appear as IVO's crusade and that would hurt the purpose as I recognize my unpopularity. |
As stated before, I had no idea who you were prior to this thread and would have been unable to match your username with either your photos or your forum posts. I expect within a few months or less I'll forget again. The only reason this issue is about *you* is that you keep making it so, or compelling other people to make it so (as in this response). |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:38:01 AM · #165 |
| I think,had this been put to a poll, you would have had a better chance of getting a positive response. However, you chose to throw it out to the masses right after a huge rant where you insulted many people. Now if a poll comes out people will identify it with your insulting tone and remarks thus defeating you're original purpose. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:43:46 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by kleski:
I think,had this been put to a poll, you would have had a better chance of getting a positive response. However, you chose to throw it out to the masses right after a huge rant where you insulted many people. Now if a poll comes out people will identify it with your insulting tone and remarks thus defeating you're original purpose. |
Good morning!
This whole cheating fiasco and everyone being pissed IS my fault. Of course.
You made me giggle again!
BTW, I think I've got some solutions and will present them later as that is what some members have been requesting.
Do not fear them for they are not IVOL!!!! Mwaahahaha
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 10:44:13. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:44:44 AM · #167 |
| I think it's time we lock this thread. It's the same old stuff over and over. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 10:48:11 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And for those who say that Nuzzer cheated the voters, then I say the voters cheated whilst voting this image.
Right???.......8>) |
Originally posted by Scholten:
I think there is a huge difference between your entry and nuzzer’s. You can honestly say the Challenge didn’t state B&W photo. What can nuzzer say, the challenge didn’t say take 47 steps from the door of your home? |
There *is* a huge difference in the entries.
BUT.....what's the difference between his ignoring the challenge details, and the voters who said DNMC, and "Not the Spirit of the Challenge" on my entry?
They ignored the challenge details, too, right?
How many times have we seen a blue ribbon winner that really wasn't quite what it should have been, theme-wise, but it was such a spectacular image that it won anyway?
Ethics roll both ways, do they not? |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is the degree of violation. “Wasn’t QUITE what it should have been…” is one thing. Boldly violating the core requirements of the challenge is another thing.
I just hate to see right and wrong being based on what people can get away with… not get caught at. It’s demoralizing to the rest of the members who try to follow the rules (those with higher ethical standards).
If DPC “leadership” is going to allow something like this, those with higher ethical standards need to decide if they will stoop to a lower level so as not to be at a disadvantage, or just ignore the cheaters and try to have fun, or move on to somewhere where there is more emphasis on ethics, if there is such a place.
We all know where the door is.
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 10:50:55. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:00:46 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by kleski:
I think,had this been put to a poll, you would have had a better chance of getting a positive response. However, you chose to throw it out to the masses right after a huge rant where you insulted many people. Now if a poll comes out people will identify it with your insulting tone and remarks thus defeating you're original purpose. |
Good morning!
This whole cheating fiasco and everyone being pissed IS my fault. Of course.
You made me giggle again!
BTW, I think I've got some solutions and will present them later as that is what some members have been requesting.
Do not fear them for they are not IVOL!!!! Mwaahahaha |
LOL... your use of the word fear and how many times you include that in a statement makes me giggle...Sorta reminds of the movie Princess Bride where Vizzini kept saying INCONCEIVABLE.. And finally Inigo looked at him and said "you keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think"... :-)... that movie has the best one liners..
I didn't get he was telling you the cheating fiasco & everyone being pissed is your fault... You reading the statement from him and taking that from it is interesting... I think that's what the whole, "you're making this about you" issue stems from..
It appears to me he is saying that if you gave a little cooling off period between the ending of the last rant thread about Nuzzers image, and then presented your idea, but in a manner that the masses could vote on, then you would have a more reliable outcome.. So, maybe this idea should be revisited and in the manner of a pole being conducted so the mass WILL have a voice..... Then, after that is all said and done and the mass of DPC decides it's useful and they would appreciate it, then there can be a group of volunteer's who decide to write this.. BTW, I prefer Mission Statement as to "code of ethics"... Just the title itself can make a huge difference.. So, how about this is presented to Langdon and he can decide if it's something he would even consider adding to his website, then if it is and he's curious if everyone else would want it, then he can make up a poll about it... Cause, it would be a bummer to go through all of this, just to make one up and then have Langdon shoot it down.. So, lets not keep talking about it, lets see if it's even a remote possibility.. Ya think ??? |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:17:25 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I think it's time we lock this thread. It's the same old stuff over and over. |
This works too. :-)
 |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:20:28 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I think it's time we lock this thread. It's the same old stuff over and over. |
This works too. :-)
|
Oh hey, this joke again! |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:23:20 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Oh hey, this joke again! |
Ummmm....whatever do you mean by that? :-P |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:27:08 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by Scholten:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And for those who say that Nuzzer cheated the voters, then I say the voters cheated whilst voting this image.
Right???.......8>) |
Originally posted by Scholten:
I think there is a huge difference between your entry and nuzzer’s. You can honestly say the Challenge didn’t state B&W photo. What can nuzzer say, the challenge didn’t say take 47 steps from the door of your home? |
There *is* a huge difference in the entries.
BUT.....what's the difference between his ignoring the challenge details, and the voters who said DNMC, and "Not the Spirit of the Challenge" on my entry?
They ignored the challenge details, too, right?
How many times have we seen a blue ribbon winner that really wasn't quite what it should have been, theme-wise, but it was such a spectacular image that it won anyway?
Ethics roll both ways, do they not? |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is the degree of violation. “Wasn’t QUITE what it should have been…” is one thing. Boldly violating the core requirements of the challenge is another thing.
I just hate to see right and wrong being based on what people can get away with… not get caught at. It’s demoralizing to the rest of the members who try to follow the rules (those with higher ethical standards).
If DPC “leadership” is going to allow something like this, those with higher ethical standards need to decide if they will stoop to a lower level so as not to be at a disadvantage, or just ignore the cheaters and try to have fun, or move on to somewhere where there is more emphasis on ethics, if there is such a place.
We all know where the door is. |
Well stated, and this is the route I'm going to go. I've chosen "ignore the cheaters and try to have fun." because I've now seen the level that the community on this website is on, and it's not a level that I wish to try and fight. It's not worth it, in the end.
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 11:27:49. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 11:52:27 AM · #174 |
A couple of reasonably neutral observations come to mind here:
1. When it comes to "meeting the challenge", it isn't my sense that *most* of us are worried about this on a day-to-day, challenge-to-challenge basis. Most challenges offer considerable leeway in interpretation. For instance, if the challenge is "pink", it's not unreasonable to respond to it by color-shifting red to pink. The voters may not like it, but the response is nevertheless a direct answer to the "pink" challenge.
But (and it's a big "but"), when the challenge is *technically* very specific, as for example with a "2-second exposure" challenge, or a "47 steps" challenge, or a "2 AM" challenge, when someone chooses to ignore these very specific common-grounds guidelines, a lot of people get bent out of shape by this, largely because it's impossible for us, as voters, to determine whether the challenge description was adhered to. It seems reasonable to me that people are annoyed by this.
2. In the voting rules, we are presented with the statement that we should "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust (our) score accordingly." But nowhere in the challenge submission rules are we instructed to "consider the challenge topic when submitting and be sure our submission responds to the topic of the given challenge."
It seems to me that, rather than agitate for a "code of ethics", which is a loaded topic if I've ever seen one, we ought to be requesting the inclusion of a line like that in the submission guidelines. Just for the record, ya know? I don't see why this should be an issue at all, that we somewhere in our rules state that it's a good idea to actually *follow* the guidelines when making submissions.
That's what this is all about.
R. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:21:26 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...In the voting rules, we are presented with the statement that we should "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust (our) score accordingly." But nowhere in the challenge submission rules are we instructed to "consider the challenge topic when submitting and be sure our submission responds to the topic of the given challenge."
...we ought to be requesting the inclusion of a line like that in the submission guidelines... I don't see why this should be an issue at all, that we somewhere in our rules state that it's a good idea to actually *follow* the guidelines when making submissions... |
I'd go further: the "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust (our) score accordingly" wording has spurred all kinds of uninformed intolerance and righteous prejudice over the years. It has, always and, IMO, unnecessarily infected both the voting process and discussions. The instruction is, as Bear rightly shows, more effectively directed at the submitting author of an image than at an unsuspecting public who may or may not have any sense of the context of an image submitted to a challenge. |
|
