Rule for Challenges - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2005 07:06:49 PM · #26

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Really, I don't think we've had a significant problem with "unauthorized collaborations."

That is probably correct but it's possibly the case that we don't know about them?

It's possible that we don't know about a lot of things, but I don't think we can base the site's structure or activites around speculation or supposition -- a.k.a. "if it ain't broke, do't fix it."

Bring us concrete evidence of a problem and we'll deal with it. In the meantime, I find idle speculation and rumor do little to improve either the function or atmosphere around here -- let's save the conspiracy theories for the anti-___ Rant threads.

12/09/2005 07:08:38 PM · #27

Will the SC be contacting Icerock, ex parte, in regards to his 'allegations'?

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

12/09/2005 07:12:20 PM · #28

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Really, I don't think we've had a significant problem with "unauthorized collaborations."

That is probably correct but it's possibly the case that we don't know about them?

It's possible that we don't know about a lot of things, but I don't think we can base the site's structure or activites around speculation or supposition -- a.k.a. "if it ain't broke, do't fix it."

Bring us concrete evidence of a problem and we'll deal with it. In the meantime, I find idle speculation and rumor do little to improve either the function or atmosphere around here -- let's save the conspiracy theories for the anti-___ Rant threads.

Hey I didn't start the thread maybe you should PM the person who has the concerns. He may have concrete evidence.

12/09/2005 07:14:05 PM · #29

I think it is possible to find ways to cut down on people's opportunities to sway the vote in a manner that would violate the currennt rules. And of course it's always a possibility that we may decide to tighten the rules. The current rules and methods/philosophy of enforcement are filled with situations that some of us see as opportunities for cheaters to take advantage of, but others see as minor inconvienences that don't change the results by much but are helpful in facilating education.

As the community grows it is becoming more evident that relying on honor to police the spirit of fair competition in the challenges will eventually fall short of providing the level of integrity we desire. At some point, maybe sooner of maybe latter, we will have to make some changes or else the competition element of our website will become a farce. We have a large investment in the database of votes from over 400 challenges - people's average scores and ribbon counts to begin with. It would be a shame to see all that has gone before gradually become less and less meaningful while the community is unable to reach a consensus on saving the honesty of the challenges.

12/09/2005 07:14:18 PM · #30

Originally posted by Jammur:

Will the SC be contacting Icerock, ex parte, in regards to his 'allegations'?

I don't think it's really our job to police what goes on at other sites. We certainly can't completely cover every site that every person on DPC might use to post their photos. It's just not feasible.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2005 07:16:08 PM · #31

Originally posted by Jammur:

Will the SC be contacting Icerock, ex parte, in regards to his 'allegations'?

Under those circumstances I wouldn't be able to tell you, would I?

Message edited by author 2005-12-09 19:16:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2005 07:18:34 PM · #32

Originally posted by keegbow:

Hey I didn't start the thread ...

Sorry, your comment was just handy for framing a reply : )

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/09/2005 07:21:17 PM · #33

Originally posted by mk:

I don't think it's really our job to police what goes on at other sites. We certainly can't completely cover every site that every person on DPC might use to post their photos. It's just not feasible.

If someone posted their picture on LJ and saying "go vote for me here" would that be against the rules?

Message edited by author 2005-12-09 19:21:39.

12/09/2005 07:23:55 PM · #34

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by Jammur:
Will the SC be contacting Icerock, ex parte, in regards to his 'allegations'?

I don't think it's really our job to police what goes on at other sites. We certainly can't completely cover every site that every person on DPC might use to post their photos. It's just not feasible.

Please consider the possibility that IceRock is making an attempt to bring forth the "concrete evidence" that GeneralE spoke of. It may not be easy for him as English is not his first language and he will likely be seen as breaking ranks with his fellow countrymen. Maybe some outreach from SC is in order, if only to avoid the appearance of hiding your collective heads in the sand.

12/09/2005 07:26:53 PM · #35

The impossible meerly takes longer, however in this case you apparently have information regarding a specific site where actions detrimental to the integrity of this site are being conducted. One could construe negligence through inaction in this situation.

Be, hey its your site.

12/09/2005 07:27:12 PM · #36

Originally posted by mavrik:

If someone posted their picture on LJ and saying "go vote for me here" would that be against the rules?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Posting the link isn't against the rules, but how it's done might be.

"Hey y'all -- check out my entry in the ___ challenge and then give me a good vote" might be an example of illegal use of a legal action.

IceRock

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/09/2005 07:27:15 PM · #37

Way is it difficult to ad this in the rule I know this is done in a big scale on foreign photo webs
and after that a e-mail of pointing out picture in Challenge will rule out picture of this kind ?

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/09/2005 07:28:07 PM · #38

You should be able to put your photo on any other website. The only thing I would say is that you don't mention it here on DPC.

KS

12/09/2005 07:28:55 PM · #39

Originally posted by coolhar:

So once we contact IceRock and get all this information, what do you suggest we do? Demand that they remove their photo from the other site? Disqualify them? Then what? Should we sit back and wait while everyone reports every person who posts their photos on buzznet or pbase or smugmug? Or should we start checking the galleries of everyone on the site? How do you see this being managed?

12/09/2005 07:29:34 PM · #40

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Jammur:
Will the SC be contacting Icerock, ex parte, in regards to his 'allegations'?

Under those circumstances I wouldn't be able to tell you, would I?

Yes, however not the outcomes of such an inquiry.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2005 07:30:00 PM · #41

Originally posted by coolhar:

Maybe the general membership should let us do that with some discretion and less commentary, so as to avoid the appearance of a witch-hunt.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/09/2005 07:30:50 PM · #42

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by mavrik:

If someone posted their picture on LJ and saying "go vote for me here" would that be against the rules?

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Posting the link isn't against the rules, but how it's done might be.

"Hey y'all -- check out my entry in the ___ challenge and then give me a good vote" might be an example of illegal use of a legal action.

This is why I love ya. Me dun read reel gud.

Message edited by author 2005-12-09 19:31:03.

12/09/2005 07:34:51 PM · #43

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Maybe the general membership should let us do that with some discretion and less commentary, so as to avoid the appearance of a witch-hunt.

Here, here! Well said.
Thank you.

12/09/2005 07:42:13 PM · #44

Originally posted by mk:

... get all this information, what do you suggest we do? Demand that they remove their photo from the other site? Disqualify them? Then what? Should we sit back and wait while everyone reports every person who posts their photos on buzznet or pbase or smugmug? Or should we start checking the galleries of everyone on the site? How do you see this being managed?

I think there are lots of things you could do, but I don't know the specifics of the case so I won't speculate.

However what I find so disconcerting (and I think some others who have posted in this thread are feeling the same thing) is that you, SC collectively, seem to not want to do anything. You seem to put more effort into finding reasons why you can't do anything about the the things that users find annoying/outrageous than you do into correcting the problems. It may be only an outwards appearance but it is all we have to base our opinions upon.

12/09/2005 07:47:50 PM · #45

Originally posted by coolhar:

However what I find so disconcerting (and I think some others who have posted in this thread are feeling the same thing) is that you, SC collectively, seem to not want to do anything. You seem to put more effort into finding reasons why you can't do anything about the the things that users find annoying/outrageous than you do into correcting the problems. It may be only an outwards appearance but it is all we have to base our opinions upon.

I don't personally feel that we need to take action, nor do I feel like it's something that could really be accomplished even if we wanted to. You apparently feel differently. If you have any actual suggestions about how this would be handled, perhaps you should suggest them, preferably without the insults and digs if that's at all possible. Keep in mind, though, that your opinion isn't necessarily that of the majority.

12/09/2005 07:48:10 PM · #46

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Maybe the general membership should let us do that with some discretion and less commentary, so as to avoid the appearance of a witch-hunt.

I am very happy to let you proceed with discretion. In fact, I insist upon it. However, I feel that you, meaning SC, should be equally happy to let the general membership know that you are doing something. That seems to be what they are insisting upon by their repeated posts in this thread.

A simple "The matter is being looked into." from any SC member would have sufficed.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/09/2005 07:53:12 PM · #47

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by mk:
... get all this information, what do you suggest we do? Demand that they remove their photo from the other site? Disqualify them? Then what? Should we sit back and wait while everyone reports every person who posts their photos on buzznet or pbase or smugmug? Or should we start checking the galleries of everyone on the site? How do you see this being managed?

I think there are lots of things you could do, but I don't know the specifics of the case so I won't speculate.

However what I find so disconcerting (and I think some others who have posted in this thread are feeling the same thing) is that you, SC collectively, seem to not want to do anything. You seem to put more effort into finding reasons why you can't do anything about the the things that users find annoying/outrageous than you do into correcting the problems. It may be only an outwards appearance but it is all we have to base our opinions upon.

Hey, our expertise at administrative inertness is what qualifies us to pull in the big bucks here!

Besides, harassing frequent forum posters is practically a full-time job in itself : )

Besides, we do "do something" about these problems -- we think about them, and their consequences, as evidenced by mk's answer. She pointed out that we've thought about the problem and have some particular practical considerations which would seem to preclude any effective action on our part, but soliciting suggestions to answer those concerns.

Instead of offering a practical action we could take, you accuse us of being lazy bums leeching off the exhorbitant membership fees ... or something like that. I have to go to my "day job" now so I can pay for my DSL connection ...

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

12/09/2005 07:55:32 PM · #48

What is the problem that supposedly should be looked into? People having their challenge entries posted elsewhere? Or people having their challenge entries posted elsewhere and directing traffic from other sites to try and skew voting?

The latter is of more concern than the former however DPC is a popularity contest to some degree so I'd expect some of that any way.

Without putting major restrictions on how images are linked to during voting I don't see how anything can be done though I'm no expert on these types of issues.

Remember to breath. ;o)

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

12/09/2005 08:00:35 PM · #49

Wouldn't it easily fixed by agreeing when uploading for a challenge that the image would not be posted elsewhere till after voting, surely that would not inconvenience anyone.

Message edited by author 2005-12-09 20:01:28.

IceRock