| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2004 04:31:35 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Kali:
Why does the value of the ribbon have to fall in order to satisfy the NEED for people without ribbons? It makes the value of the ribbon a non-absolute. |
Please stopping attributing this huge value to ribbons. They are worth nothing. Diddly squat. Always have been, always will be.
|
You can't really argue that the virtual ribbon is valueless. They may not hold monetary value but they do give a sense of a job well done. Do you not hold others feelings of success as valuable? I do... it may not have a direct effect on me, but it's great for them and their self-esteem, which, in turn spreads. Can you honestly tell me that when you won your first ribbon you held no value to it or your feelings of accomplishment?
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Kali:
Like I said before, if this is all in the name of being entertained why hand out ribbons in a no ribbon challenge? The fun is in competition, right? Winning is superfluous. |
Exactly. You said it yourself. The ribbons are worthless, the value is in entering, voting and commenting.
|
Yes the value is in the fight, that does not negate the value of the ribbon. Do we really need to shorten the playing field in order to satisfy a need for an easier ribbon?
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Kali:
If you must remove the known talent then PLEASE don't award the same ribbon. |
A few virtual ribbons doesn't equal talent. I'm expecting some outstanding work in the ribbonless challenge. Either that, or all the people who keep saying it's making it too easy and de-valuing ribbons had better show us just how easy it is. |
I never said ribbons equal talent, but it is a quick judge of ability.
For you to say it's not going to be easier is completely illogical. |
I for one won't feel that great if by some fluke I win a ribbon where many of the best contributors are not allowed to compete. The Masters Challenges also exclude many fine contributors, but from my selfish point of view, they do produce a small pool of very fine photographs which I find both entertaining and educational. And those are my two main reasons for being here.
I do think the suggestion of SLR / non-SLR competitions makes good sense. You can see how you stack up against people using similar equipment. Non-SLR people cannot utilize longer lenses or higher ISO settings to effectively realize their vision for a particular shot. And while a ribbon in general competition is demonstrably possible, it is less probable given that any artistic stretch will produce lower quality technical output.
Hm, since I'm of a despicably liberal persuasion, maybe I'll lobby for the federal government to provide each and every citizen with a digital SLR!! {:-) |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:36:09 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by langdon:
After much discussion over the Masters Challenge, we've decided to create "Invitational Challenges" in an effort to please everyone(!). Later tonight, you'll see the third Invitiational Challenge scheduled: "Invitational Challenge (No Ribbon)". The first two were the Masters Challenges which have since been renamed to fit the naming scheme.
If anyone has any ideas for alternative Invitational Challenges, shout em out. |
Thanks, I like the title Invitational Challenge better. It is a apt description.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:40:03 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by bod:
...all the people who keep saying it's making it too easy and de-valuing ribbons had better show us just how easy it is. |
You're on! As proof that this such a challenge is easier to win, I boldly predict that NONE of the top ten finishers will have won a ribbon before (likely a first in recent challenge history).
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 16:40:59. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:53:27 PM · #154 |
In my view, if an image wins a ribbon but I don't like the photo then that winner has a valueless ribbon [to me].
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:27:03 PM · #155 |
I could never follow the logic espoused as this debate reached the conclusion it did.
The master was just not the proper title. It should have been worded different, but three ribbons nor 10 ribbons make a master. Besides, there is a school which snobs the half assed taste of the masses and dismisses it completly.
Now, the complain was that a challenge for multiple ribbon winners were allowed to compete amongst themselves.
Here the non ribbon winners cried foul. They want a challenge of their own for the non winners.
Can you not see the asine disparity here. The ribbon winners go at it with stiffer competition to earn another ribbon and the non winners want the same value ribbon with a handicap !
Now, there are some of you who do not place any importance on a ribbon but this is something awarded to you by the collective vote of the members. Yes, you can insult the voters, but they have the last laugh. They choose.
With all due respect to non ribbon winners and the fine lot of fine and talented phorographers, if you stick to it you will score. But to have a handycap challenge degrades or dilutes the integrity of the ribbon. Yes, it is only a cyber space award, but it is nevertheless awarded you and you can chose to ignore it. This very thread is born out of those that want it so bad that they are willing to waterdown the competition to get it.
It reminds me of the liberal approach that seeks to level the playing field so that eventually there will be no winners. But what type of site is DPC but a competive fori, for images.
Regardless, this is a historical moment in DPC, because the very merit that makes them so popular is being dilutted to accomodate a wild call for the poor souls that have not had the good fortune to score a ribbon.
The solution has changed the face of the DPC ribbon. You can say the ribbon is valueless in any form and that is fine. But its integrity has been defaced and will continue to do so without end in sight. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:32:16 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Is Drew's ribbon worth the same as the winner of Impressionism or the same as the winner of Macro w/o Bugs & Flowers?
The point is, after 10 challenges, ALL ribbons had different values.
What are you valuing ribbons on? That's what I want to know. |
I really don't like repeating myself... but I will make it as simple as possible: Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value. Winning ribbons = happiness = pride = value.
I COMPLETELY agree that all ribbons hold different values, but to award these same ribbons (of various values) to a limited playing field devalues ALL previous ribbons that were won non-discriminately. Participants of a no ribbon challenge did not earn what should be the added perk of an extra challenge, they whined their way there by complaining that a master's challenge wasn't fair. Life isn't fairâ€Â¦ if it was that would be pretty damn dull considering we are not equal. That is the beauty of life, knowing your faults and learning from them. Not creating delusions of grandeur.
Originally posted by davidbedard:
I do think the suggestion of SLR / non-SLR competitions makes good sense. |
And an excellent alternative to this 'no ribbon' challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:36:00 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I could never follow the logic espoused as this debate reached the conclusion it did.
The master was just not the proper title. It should have been worded different, but three ribbons nor 10 ribbons make a master. Besides, there is a school which snobs the half assed taste of the masses and dismisses it completly.
Now, the complain was that a challenge for multiple ribbon winners were allowed to compete amongst themselves.
Here the non ribbon winners cried foul. They want a challenge of their own for the non winners.
Can you not see the asine disparity here. The ribbon winners go at it with stiffer competition to earn another ribbon and the non winners want the same value ribbon with a handicap !
Now, there are some of you who do not place any importance on a ribbon but this is something awarded to you by the collective vote of the members. Yes, you can insult the voters, but they have the last laugh. They choose.
With all due respect to non ribbon winners and the fine lot of fine and talented phorographers, if you stick to it you will score. But to have a handycap challenge degrades or dilutes the integrity of the ribbon. Yes, it is only a cyber space award, but it is nevertheless awarded you and you can chose to ignore it. This very thread is born out of those that want it so bad that they are willing to waterdown the competition to get it.
It reminds me of the liberal approach that seeks to level the playing field so that eventually there will be no winners. But what type of site is DPC but a competive fori, for images.
Regardless, this is a historical moment in DPC, because the very merit that makes them so popular is being dilutted to accomodate a wild call for the poor souls that have not had the good fortune to score a ribbon.
The solution has changed the face of the DPC ribbon. You can say the ribbon is valueless in any form and that is fine. But its integrity has been defaced and will continue to do so without end in sight. |
Yes, but Daniel, in some ways, you could say the previous masters challenge results in far less competition. I would much rather compete with 100 than 500. And there are only 37 entries in Impressionism.
In every challenge, there's the potential for new ribbon winners. By excluding many others in the masters challenges, each "master" was granted a much higher probability of winning another ribbon.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:42:05 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Yes, but Daniel, in some ways, you could say the previous masters challenge results in far less competition. I would much rather compete with 100 than 500. And there are only 37 entries in Impressionism.
In every challenge, there's the potential for new ribbon winners. By excluding many others in the masters challenges, each "master" was granted a much higher probability of winning another ribbon. |
They've earned it!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:52:40 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Can you not see the asine disparity here. The ribbon winners go at it with stiffer competition to earn another ribbon and the non winners want the same value ribbon with a handicap! ...to have a handycap challenge degrades or dilutes the integrity of the ribbon. |
...there are only 37 entries in Impressionism. ...By excluding many others in the masters challenges, each "master" was granted a much higher probability of winning another ribbon. |
I agree with both of you. I don't think anyone can genuinely feel as proud of winning ANY contest with the toughest competitors removed. The low turnout on Impressionism results in better odds, but that was just a tactical error in the "invitation." By bumping the eligibility to 3 ribbons, there were only about 60 possible contestants (if that many) for an arguably more difficult challenge. A one or two ribbon entry requirement would have made more sense. That said, I could still take pride in winning a ribbon against 38 tough competitors who would likely be jostling for the top positions even in a field of 200 entries.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 17:53:54. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:57:32 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Can you not see the asine disparity here. The ribbon winners go at it with stiffer competition to earn another ribbon and the non winners want the same value ribbon with a handicap! ...to have a handycap challenge degrades or dilutes the integrity of the ribbon. |
...there are only 37 entries in Impressionism. ...By excluding many others in the masters challenges, each "master" was granted a much higher probability of winning another ribbon. |
I agree with both of you. I don't think anyone can genuinely feel as proud of winning ANY contest with the toughest competitors removed. The low turnout on Impressionism results in better odds, but that was just a tactical error in the "invitation." By bumping the eligibility to 3 ribbons, there were only about 60 possible contestants (if that many) for an arguably more difficult challenge. A one or two ribbon entry requirement would have made more sense. That said, I could still take pride in winning a ribbon against 38 tough competitors who would likely be jostling for the top positions even in a field of 200 entries. |
So in fact, the real answer is not to exclude anyone from any competition. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:11:55 PM · #161 |
Sorry for the slow response, been watching the pitiful excuse of a football match that was Spain vs England.
Originally posted by Kali:
You can't really argue that the virtual ribbon is valueless. They may not hold monetary value but they do give a sense of a job well done. Do you not hold others feelings of success as valuable? I do... it may not have a direct effect on me, but it's great for them and their self-esteem, which, in turn spreads. Can you honestly tell me that when you won your first ribbon you held no value to it or your feelings of accomplishment? |
Indeed, my first ribbon gave me a buzz, in exactly the same way my first 6+ and first 7+ (which didn't ribbon) scores did. In fact nowadays I feel a huge sense of achievement if I can score above 6!
However, my first ribbon was in a challenge with only 79 entries which many previous ribbon winners didn't enter. Does this mean it was a de-valued ribbon?
Originally posted by Kali:
Yes the value is in the fight, that does not negate the value of the ribbon. Do we really need to shorten the playing field in order to satisfy a need for an easier ribbon? |
I still don't buy into the argument that a ribbon in this challenge will be easier. Look through the top 30 images in the macro challenge. For me none of them would look out of place with a ribbon beside them (yours included :) ). I haven't even heard of the majority of the photographers (though I haven't been here much this year).
Originally posted by bod:
I never said ribbons equal talent, but it is a quick judge of ability.
For you to say it's not going to be easier is completely illogical. |
I would class average score as a better indicator. I always got the feeling that there was a fair degree of luck involved in my ribbon wins - a right place, right time sort of thing. I'm far more impressed with people who can consistantly produce the goods.
The more I think about it, the more I think that taking those who have mastered the dpc formula out of the equation is a good idea. Let's see a different flavour of cream rise to the top for a change.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:14:10 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bod:
...all the people who keep saying it's making it too easy and de-valuing ribbons had better show us just how easy it is. |
You're on! As proof that this such a challenge is easier to win, I boldly predict that NONE of the top ten finishers will have won a ribbon before (likely a first in recent challenge history). |
: )
I asked for that didn't I?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:14:16 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
In every challenge, there's the potential for new ribbon winners. By excluding many others in the masters challenges, each "master" was granted a much higher probability of winning another ribbon. |
In any given challenge with 200-300 entries, there will be a group of people who consistently scores over 6 and a group of people who consistently score under 5 (for whatever reason). I know this is oversimplifying things (and I mean no disrespect to anyone in the latter group), but someone with 8 or more ribbons is really only competing against a field of 50 others with similar skills. Yes, a photographer routinely in the 4-5 range can get lucky or have an epiphany and break though to the next level (I did in June), but for the most part limiting the low-end doesn't change the odds at the top. In the last 19 challenges, I've finished worse than 50th place exactly once- in the Master's Challenge. I certainly don't think my odds were any better with the limited number of entries. On the other hand, removing those routinely at the top DEFINITELY helps the odds of the remainder.
Note that I'm not against a no-ribbon challenge. As noted earlier, I think many of the perennial 5-6 scoring bridesmaids are more willing to take risks and demonstrate excellent creativity. I just think it's silly to think that a no-ribbon ribbon is as meaningful as any other. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:15:15 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
So in fact, the real answer is not to exclude anyone from any competition. |
Probably. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:17:32 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I could still take pride in winning a ribbon against 38 tough competitors who would likely be jostling for the top positions even in a field of 200 entries. |
Make that 37. I've spent half of this year jostling in the 4's :P
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:25:47 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value. |
Oh spare me the Randian lecture. I teach the course.
Nobody would enter the competition if they only cared about their own highest value. Galt didn't care how good your engine was - he created the best one he could. His followers weren't as "good" as him, but even Galt could see the use in an engine design competition that he wasn't part of - something for his students.
Does it make more sense when I couch it in a familiar scenario? Kiwi and Heida teach the class. Doesn't mean what we do isn't worth winning a DPC competition.
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:31:06 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Life isn't fairâ€Â¦ if it was that would be pretty damn dull considering we are not equal. That is the beauty of life, knowing your faults and learning from them. Not creating delusions of grandeur. |
ALL ribbons have different values. Drew's was won against EIGHT competitors! How difficult is that compared to winning against 500? I understand where you are coming from, philosophically. Now, try and see where everyone else is coming from - FUN and LEARNING.
Without all those others in the challenge, a few people will win their first ribbons, but only 3 of them. And those people aren't exactly going to suck. Why can't we wait to see the results before saying "yep, well the photos in this challenge sucked."
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:32:27 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by bod:
Sorry for the slow response, been watching the pitiful excuse of a football match that was Spain vs England.
Originally posted by Kali:
Can you honestly tell me that when you won your first ribbon you held no value to it or your feelings of accomplishment? |
Indeed, my first ribbon gave me a buzz, in exactly the same way my first 6+ and first 7+ (which didn't ribbon) scores did. In fact nowadays I feel a huge sense of achievement if I can score above 6!
However, my first ribbon was in a challenge with only 79 entries which many previous ribbon winners didn't enter. Does this mean it was a de-valued ribbon?
|
No. All who wanted to enter could and did.
Originally posted by bod:
Look through the top 30 images in the macro challenge. For me none of them would look out of place with a ribbon beside them (yours included :) ). I haven't even heard of the majority of the photographers (though I haven't been here much this year).
|
I didn't enter the macro challenge. I rarely enter anymore... and depending on what happens with this discrimination of ability I may not feel the need to contribute to a site that doesn't hold true to it's value & integrity. My morality demands that of me.
Originally posted by bod:
I never said ribbons equal talent, but it is a quick judge of ability.
For you to say it's not going to be easier is completely illogical. |
The more I think about it, the more I think that taking those who have mastered the dpc formula out of the equation is a good idea. Let's see a different flavour of cream rise to the top for a change. [/quote]
What flovor would that be? Mirage?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:36:03 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Regardless, this is a historical moment in DPC, because the very merit that makes them so popular is being dilutted to accomodate a wild call for the poor souls that have not had the good fortune to score a ribbon.
The solution has changed the face of the DPC ribbon. You can say the ribbon is valueless in any form and that is fine. But its integrity has been defaced and will continue to do so without end in sight. |
Well, I guess this poor soul will be sitting another one out! How could I allow myself to enter after reading that?! :( |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:36:09 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Drew's [ribbon] was won against EIGHT competitors! How difficult is that compared to winning against 500? |
Kinda depends on the eight, doesn't it? Kiwiness, jjbeguin, kosmikkreeper, heida, crabappl3, dsidwell, sonifo and BradP... oh suuuure, piece of cake. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:38:19 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Kali:
I rarely enter anymore... and depending on what happens with this discrimination of ability I may not feel the need to contribute to a site that doesn't hold true to it's value & integrity. My morality demands that of me. |
Discrimination of ability...so if you have never won a ribbon, but finished 4th like 10 times, you suck?
"True to it's value of integrity" - you're talking about YOUR value of integrity, which is that prior to this all ribbons were created equal and now they are not. That simply isn't true, no matter how many semantic run arounds you try.
Your morality demands of you that you not compete on a site with different values of ribbon? Yet, as long as everyone "could" compete, it doesn't matter who actually does? A challenge with 9 newbie entrants is the same as a challenge with 500 including 'masters', but a challenge with 200 entrants and no ribbon winners isn't?
*still confused*
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:39:00 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It reminds me of the liberal approach that seeks to level the playing field so that eventually there will be no winners. But what type of site is DPC but a competive fori, for images. |
Please keep the politics out of this thread.
Thank you.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:40:26 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Kali:
What flavor would that be? Mirage? |
Artificial flavor, I suspect. ;-)
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 18:40:39. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:40:46 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Kinda depends on the eight, doesn't it? Kiwiness, jjbeguin, kosmikkreeper, heida, crabappl3, dsidwell, sonifo and BradP... oh suuuure, piece of cake. |
And who won the Master's challenge?
BobLobster, jonpink and BradP.
No Heida. No JJ. No Sidwell. No Kiwi.
Yeah, I like my chances in the 8 better than in the 500.
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:42:42 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Kali:
I didn't enter the macro challenge. |
Apologies, I confused you with KaDi.
Originally posted by Kali:
I rarely enter anymore... and depending on what happens with this discrimination of ability I may not feel the need to contribute to a site that doesn't hold true to it's value & integrity. My morality demands that of me. |
I'm sorry that's the case. I just come here to have fun. Everything else is a bonus.
I don't expect all the invitational challenges to be ability based, that's not what it's about. I just think that after the noise the non-ribbon winners made about the masters challenge the site had to be seen to be looking after them. The next invitational will no doubt be to pacify the one-hit-wonders, but after that they could be based on shoe size for all I know.
|
|
