| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2005 02:03:16 PM · #126 |
I almost cannot believe I'm posting to this whine-fest, but after 5 pages of this stuff, there's a couple of things I've gleaned...
First, no one reads anyone else's posts. If they did, the thread would still be on the first or second page, and the same opinion would not be expressed 3 dozen times.
Second, if it's an experiment, the SC should have known ahead of time. By doing it as it was done, it does come off as trickery - and is definitely plagerism. There is no copyright issue, as I am sure the copyright on the image in question expired some time ago - or is in the public domain.
Third, I believe that many of the SC comments in here had an imflammatory effect. I feel pretty stongly that this thread should have been locked long ago, and that it is not the place of SC to make inflammatory comments. Personal opinions are one thing, but the SC is in a position of authority and is held to a higher standard. Their posting such comments basically permits anyone else to say anything at all, and that's not a good standard to set.
-Steve |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:08:24 PM · #127 |
The words 'short', 'life' and 'too' spring instantly to mind when reading this thread. While RB didn't exactly apologise, he did come clean.
- A tiny gif was uploaded onto the internet and some people viewed and clicked at it. End of story. -
I'm not offended, and all the talk of 'violation' sounds like the fun is slipping away from this site. Perhaps there should be a digital version of the ED209 robot from Robocop to ignore the nuances of language and destroy any DPC deviants without further ado! I'm off to the pubâ€Â¦ |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:09:17 PM · #128 |
Why don't we just post a poll on the home page and let the voters decide what action is best for RonBeam?
Seems like that would be the best way to work this out...
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:11:45 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by mcrochip:
Third, I believe that many of the SC comments in here had an imflammatory effect. I feel pretty stongly that this thread should have been locked long ago, and that it is not the place of SC to make inflammatory comments. Personal opinions are one thing, but the SC is in a position of authority and is held to a higher standard. Their posting such comments basically permits anyone else to say anything at all, and that's not a good standard to set. |
i can see how you would feel this way. however, it's important to remember that the SC members are human too and we can get frustrated and upset just like the next guy.
it's ALSO important to remember that we collectively have a very long memory. it's safe to say that if this were a one-time stunt we would deal with it and move right along. unfortunately, it appears that this is NOT an isolated incident. as our investigation progresses, we are becoming more frustrated, and some of that is, understandably, spilling out into this thread.
another point is that as SC members we try to "take care" of the site as best we can (yeah, we get bitchy and make fun of people too, but we really do try to look out for the site). when we someone abusing the community that has been established for us and that we have tried to maintain, there's a very ma/paternal protective instinct that rears up and causes us to lash out.
long story short: submitting this image as his own work was a flagrant copyright violation and it has been removed from the challenge and from the site. the only tangible result of this "experiment" thus far has been to shine a spotlight on this user and his previous efforts here.
if i've said too much, i trust one of the other "mother hens" to edit this post. i just can't stand to sit here and watch a 100+ post thread argue about the merits of an action when very few people understand the extent of the issue. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:13:09 PM · #130 |
Jaimeson,
While on one level that sounds okay, the SC is actively discussing this and deciding the best course of action.
Hang tight, it'll all make sense in the end. Or at least more than it does now.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:14:48 PM · #131 |
Thanks Karmat...I'm sure the SC will do what's best for the site. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:15:34 PM · #132 |
| Also, on a sortof related note, please note that RonBeam and RonB are two totally different users. I only mention this because somewhere back there, there was a reference to RonB, but I can't find it now. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:19:05 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Jaimeson:
Why don't we just post a poll on the home page and let the voters decide what action is best for RonBeam?
Seems like that would be the best way to work this out... |
Because that's our job. You guys don't know all the facts, don't know of any other possible violations and broken rules involved with either this image...or other ones. You can see in the challenge results that his shoes entry was ALSO entered illegally. Was that an experiment too?? Where are the results of that one?
2 DQs warrants a suspension however you look at it, for whatever reason and that is also in the rules. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:24:09 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by Jaimeson:
Why don't we just post a poll on the home page and let the voters decide what action is best for RonBeam?
Seems like that would be the best way to work this out... |
Because that's our job. You guys don't know all the facts, don't know of any other possible violations and broken rules involved with either this image...or other ones. You can see in the challenge results that his shoes entry was ALSO entered illegally. Was that an experiment too?? Where are the results of that one?
2 DQs warrants a suspension however you look at it, for whatever reason and that is also in the rules. |
Point taken...please see my second post after I posted the poll statement.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:39:16 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by dragonlady:
I think what Ron did was a good idea..what are we afraid of? Learning something? |
What Ron did was a violation. Had Ron wanted the site to learn something, she should have contacted SC and Admins with this plan as has been done in the past. We were investigating the 'stollen image' days before he 'came clean', so he didn't 'come clean' he got caught.
We have done this exact same experiment in the past. It was organized, SC knew about it, and at no time did the submitter ever try to pass it off as their own photo. Ron did.
For those who think that submitting a photo to a challenge that is not your own...be careful. That warrants a suspension. |
I do not pretend to know what the SC investigation has found, but I wouldn't be able to sleep if I didn't clarify one thing:
I posted a note in a thread about my D&L submission and how I had hoped it had faired better than it did. Ron posted on that thread that he too thought the shot was under-voted. Not wanting to bump (for all intents and purposes) a dead thread - I PM him with a thank you for his kind words. He replied (9/8-two days after the submission deadline for the "Branch" challenge), to watch a Thread he planned on posting Sunday evening. I mention this, not to defend his actions, but because I feel strongly that his intent was just as he explained and not that he was on the verge of being caught for something and came up with this elaborate ruse.
It doesn't excuse any DP rules he broke and I think he expected there to be punishment...
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 02:52:12 PM · #136 |
| I have to agree, maybe this guy doesn't deserve a suspension... his motives weren't of a bad nature. But, it doesn't excuse the breaking of rules just as much as murder isn't a crime if the person deserved it. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:18:20 PM · #137 |
Ladies and gents-
This user is facing a lengthy suspension for multiple violations of the TOS. He has had two entries DQd, and we are reviwing other data related to his past and present conduct.
Because of this, the members of Site Council are having a bit of difficulty seeing this whole event as an innocent experiment.
As always, we appreciate the support of the community as we work to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:44:57 PM · #138 |
| In another forum that I frequent we regularly encounter similar situations, if not exactly for the same reasons. We have come to call them the 'Seldon crises'. Most people in this other forum agree that they are inevitable to maintrain the integrity of the environment. An acid test, if you like. No tragedy, really. :-) |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:47:48 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
In another forum that I frequent we regularly encounter similar situations, if not exactly for the same reasons. We have come to call them the 'Seldon crises'. Most people in this other forum agree that they are inevitable to maintrain the integrity of the environment. An acid test, if you like. No tragedy, really. :-) |
Fortunately the future of the Galactic Empire doesn't depend on our decisions. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:51:36 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Didymus:
In another forum that I frequent we regularly encounter similar situations, if not exactly for the same reasons. We have come to call them the 'Seldon crises'. Most people in this other forum agree that they are inevitable to maintrain the integrity of the environment. An acid test, if you like. No tragedy, really. :-) |
Fortunately the future of the Galactic Empire doesn't depend on our decisions. |
You mean SC is NOT the Foundation? I'm crushed...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:52:02 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Didymus:
In another forum that I frequent we regularly encounter similar situations, if not exactly for the same reasons. We have come to call them the 'Seldon crises'. Most people in this other forum agree that they are inevitable to maintrain the integrity of the environment. An acid test, if you like. No tragedy, really. :-) |
Fortunately the future of the Galactic Empire doesn't depend on our decisions. |
Oh, but it does. It always does. Your every thought and every deed shall echo through eternity ...
:-) |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:56:13 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
You mean SC is NOT the Foundation? I'm crushed...
R. |
Actually .. ..
(shh, try to keep it under your hat, okie dokie) |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 03:59:28 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Ladies and gents-
This user is facing a lengthy suspension for multiple violations of the TOS. He has had two entries DQd, and we are reviwing other data related to his past and present conduct.
Because of this, the members of Site Council are having a bit of difficulty seeing this whole event as an innocent experiment.
As always, we appreciate the support of the community as we work to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
Clara |
Ah. In that case he is clearly scum and must be destroyed.
: ) |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:44:11 PM · #144 |
I must say something here...
I find this thread most distressing...as though I have been transported back in time to watch the Salem witch trials actually. I truly believe Ron meant no ill will, he was trying to prove a point...it was "proven", the experiment was amazingly successful, with this very thread being the icing on the cake so to speak, or at least a hot knife that has struck a raw nerve. I have conversed with Ron off and on over the months an he is not the evil monster so many here at the moment seem to think he is...did everyone actually READ and then comprehend the original post? Ron is extremely articulate, a masterful writer and a fine photographer at that...I have seen his other non DPC work and can vouch for what I say here.
I don't understand all these personal attacks...aren't those a violation of the TOS?
I feel as though Ron is being sentenced publically before this trial is over by both SC and members. He has taken responsibility for his actions and knows there will be a "price to pay"...so why must he be beaten into a bloody pulp? Yes...I know he technically started it...but please, Ron does not deserve this, no one really does.
JMHO
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:52:03 PM · #145 |
I don't understand what the big deal is. I submit famous photographs by famous photographers to the challenges all the time and it doesn't end up helping my scores any. ;)
I'm glad I remember to take my pills...
I'm hitting the pub with Imagineer. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 05:53:45 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by rktdesign:
I don't understand all these personal attacks...aren't those a violation of the TOS? |
If you see personal attacks, feel free to use the "report post" feature and the SC will address them. Having kept up with the thread and then having scanned it just now, I fail to see any (calling someone's "experiment" lame is not a personal attack) but it's quite possible that I have missed some.
Originally posted by rktdesign:
I feel as though Ron is being sentenced publically before this trial is over by both SC and members. |
I disagree. The only reaction that any of the SC have displayed has been a result of what we already know to be true. We are currently looking further into other issues, but you'll note a lack of accusation and/or final ruling for those issues as nothing has been determined.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 06:05:18 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by JPR:
I'm hitting the pub with Imagineer. |
ditto that. just make sure when you go to leave that jon's not still in the loo... |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 06:11:35 PM · #148 |
I don't even know how I could be offended...kind of interesting..rule breaker bad...
hmmm, pub, gotta get someone to watch the kids...wait up.. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 06:29:31 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by micknewton:
nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
Pssht, that's not even how it works. He has to actually call someone a nazi, the SC has to step in, hide some posts and remind everyone to refrain from personal attacks. At least three people need to start new threads about censorship and lack of freedom of speech, two of which will be locked by SC, after which, at least two more threads will be started about the secret SC society and how biased we are. Then 6 people will post about beating a dead horse and by that time, everyone will have forgotten about this thread so it will be over. |
Guess I forgot about Quirk's exception:
"Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual."
|
|
|
|
09/12/2005 07:37:42 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The "copyright violation" seems to me to be a non-issue, since "fair use" would allow posting of others' images for edeucational purposes, and it happens all the time in here.
|
IMHO, the fact that it happens here all the time is the biggest down fall of the DPC. Just because it is done often or that it is technically legal doesn't make it right. Your "fair use" policy is anything but to the original artist. It stealing, it is disrespect and its just not right to use another photgrapher's work without permission. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 11:21:35 AM EDT.
