Rule for Challenges - DPChallenge Forums

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

12/09/2005 08:11:20 PM · #51

... and the consequence of ticking the box but doing it anyway would be?

Who would police it? How would it be managed?

coolhar

12/09/2005 08:14:17 PM · #52

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

... people having their challenge entries posted elsewhere and directing traffic from other sites to try and skew voting?

I believe that would be a violation of the rule concerning attempts to sway votes which was quoted earlier in this thread.

There are solutions available, easy to administer, workable solutions. Keegbow has offered one. I have offered some in the past. But perhaps this is not the best time and place to discuss them. Enough hard feelings have already come to the surface in this thread. Give SC some time to investigate. We may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Or maybe they will find a mountain and propose a way to scale it.

IceRock

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/09/2005 08:15:19 PM · #53

Better to ask wold you post a picture to challenge after this is in rule an penalty is bad
Icerock

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

... and the consequence of ticking the box but doing it anyway would be?

Who would police it? How would it be managed?

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/09/2005 08:17:57 PM · #54

It's always bugged me that some members have their challenge shots right in plain view on their PaD, pBase & similar sites, often with "My such & such challenge photo on DPC" right in the narrative. Circle of friends know...
I have personally tested the waters on shots a long time ago on a couple sites, to get feedback before entering a challenge, but have long since quit doing that - thought it was tacky.

12/09/2005 08:19:58 PM · #55

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

... and the consequence of ticking the box but doing it anyway would be?

Who would police it? How would it be managed?

DQ would be the consequence, SC would police it, anyone who see's a image elsewhere could put in a DQ request.
Too easy.

12/09/2005 08:20:15 PM · #56

Having a penalty is fine but what's the point of a rule if there's no way to police it.

12/09/2005 08:21:08 PM · #57

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
... and the consequence of ticking the box but doing it anyway would be?

Who would police it? How would it be managed?

DQ would be the consequence, SC would police it, anyone who see's a image elsewhere could put in a DQ request.
Too easy.

So, you are going to search the internet for every entry just to be sure.

IceRock

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/09/2005 08:22:26 PM · #58

Announcement will be sent to admin be sure of that

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Having a penalty is fine but what's the point of a rule if there's no way to police it.

12/09/2005 08:23:21 PM · #59

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

... and the consequence of ticking the box but doing it anyway would be?

Who would police it? How would it be managed?

Locks only keep out honest people.
Its the appearance of propriety that's important.

12/09/2005 08:26:43 PM · #60

It's a rule that's like swiss cheese. whatever. if there's a box that has to be ticked to submit an entry, I'll tick it. The anonymity police can waste as much time as they want looking for it elsewhere.

12/09/2005 08:32:44 PM · #61

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I'm wondering what impression your trying to convey about your own integrity with that statement?

12/09/2005 08:34:17 PM · #62

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

So what's wrong with that if someone wants to search the web so be it.
It would be similiar to putting a DQ request in for any other reason some people here do that all the time.

12/09/2005 08:38:36 PM · #63

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It's a rule that's like swiss cheese. whatever. if there's a box that has to be ticked to submit an entry, I'll tick it. The anonymity police can waste as much time as they want looking for it elsewhere.

So what's wrong with that if someone wants to search the web so be it.
It would be similiar to putting a DQ request in for any other reason some people here do that all the time.

Based on rules that can be verified for photographic/editing reasons.

Message edited by author 2005-12-09 20:39:03.

12/09/2005 08:42:19 PM · #64

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It's a rule that's like swiss cheese. whatever. if there's a box that has to be ticked to submit an entry, I'll tick it. The anonymity police can waste as much time as they want looking for it elsewhere.

So what's wrong with that if someone wants to search the web so be it.
It would be similiar to putting a DQ request in for any other reason some people here do that all the time.

Based on rules that can be verified for photographic/editing reasons.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you are saying ?

12/09/2005 08:49:00 PM · #65

We're on two different sides of this issue and I'm in an argumentative mood tonite.

If someone's done something to their image (posting elsewhere is not doing anything to it) that is not allowed under the editing rules then someone will request that an image be verified and it will be dq'd. Taking the picture outside the challenge dates is included in this.

How does having the image posted elsewhere make the image invalid if it was taken within the right timeframe and within the editing rules? It is not compulsory that the owner of the image remain anonymous. If that were so then PMs during a challenge would be outlawed so there is no possibility of the photographer's identity being revealed in that way.

Argue away on the other side. ;)

12/09/2005 08:57:19 PM · #66

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I based my arguement on a system if we had a tick box when uploading that stated we agree not to post the image on another site.

Remember the rule you said was like swiss cheese and you would just tick the box.

12/09/2005 09:01:37 PM · #67

thanks for answering the question.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/09/2005 09:04:05 PM · #68

Just how much should be illegal? Posting your photo on another site? Any site? Your own site? What about sharing it through instant messenger? How do we police that? Showing other people you live with? What about with other DPCers that live near you? Etc...

12/09/2005 09:20:54 PM · #69

Originally posted by mk:

How much personal integrity do you have?
That should be a good standard to apply :)

12/09/2005 09:24:22 PM · #70

Originally posted by Jammur:

Originally posted by mk:
Just how much should be illegal? Posting your photo on another site? Any site? Your own site? What about sharing it through instant messenger? How do we police that? Showing other people you live with? What about with other DPCers that live near you? Etc...

How much personal integrity do you have?
That should be a good standard to apply :)

What are you implying?

12/09/2005 09:28:14 PM · #71

Originally posted by mk:

Just how much should be illegal? Posting your photo on another site? Any site? Your own site?

I think all of the above should be illegal and I have already explained how it could be implemented and policed.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/09/2005 09:29:41 PM · #72

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by mk:
Just how much should be illegal? Posting your photo on another site? Any site? Your own site?

I think all of the above should be illegal and I have already explained how it could be implemented and policed.

With a checkbox?

12/09/2005 09:45:28 PM · #73

Is anyone familar with golf?
The rules of golf are published and golfers are expected to police themselves. Sometimes other players spot infractions, sometimes spectators. They even have rules officals at touraments. But the really neat thing is that players call themselves on rules, often costing themselves lots of money.

Put a rule in effect that members may not post their entries anywhere else during the time of a challenge, until the end of voting. At least then its defined. The members police themselves.

12/09/2005 09:57:18 PM · #74

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by mk:
Just how much should be illegal? Posting your photo on another site? Any site? Your own site?

I think all of the above should be illegal and I have already explained how it could be implemented and policed.

With a checkbox?

yes an honour system