| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 10:55:51 AM · #1 |
In reference to the ongoing controversy and interpretation of the rules that seem to change week to week, I suggest we have some form or addendum to the rules -a sort of case law library or something.
I am not a lawyer, but I watch them on TV - while the law might say 'Kill a person and get 25 to life' one can use precedents as examples of prior rulings to argue the merits of one's case. This allows for the shifting of the interpretaion of the law over time.
Abortion was once illegal in teh US. I bet that law is still on the books, even thought a courtcase has made it defacto legal. If all one had was the book, one would think it it still illegal - it is the case law and precedents that actually are the law.
As to how to implement this, well, a searchable database and every DQ needs more than a line of why it was DQd IF it was in the nature of too0 mcuh this or that (see this thread for an example)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:59:22 AM · #2 |
We're working on it. :)
Keep in mind that we are volunteers, and have to find time to put these things together in between our real jobs. :)
Bottom line is this- if you are agressively editing your shot run it past SC. At the least we can let you know if it's going to be borderline.
Remember that the rules can have evolved from a previous set (as is the case in some of the motion blur images). Past precident is NOT an indicator that you can still enter a similar shot.
The rules revision currently in review should help a good deal with clarification of some of the questionable points. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:00:28 AM · #3 |
Could be that we are already building that library through the accumulation of DQed images with reasons. With each new addition insight is gained as to what is and is not within the rules. It helps clarify concepts like "major element" among other things.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:00:55 AM · #4 |
| Also keep in mind that a case law based system isn't the only way to do things. Other countries do okay with different systems not based on precident- and they've been doing it for a few more years. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:15:15 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Also keep in mind that a case law based system isn't the only way to do things. Other countries do okay with different systems not based on precident- and they've been doing it for a few more years. |
So what is your suggestion?
samanwar was DQ'd for going 'too far' apparently, but the rules as posted don't mention a)tha he can't use that filter that way or that much or b) what is 'too far'. With the images he presented to support his case similar editing was allowd in the past. IOt does appear that the line of what is allowed or is 'too far' is moving, as stated in the thread.
SO how is one to read the collective mind of the SC on this, or similar issues?
Originally posted by blemt:
Keep in mind that we are volunteers, and have to find time to put these things together in between our real jobs. :)
Bottom line is this- if you are agressively editing your shot run it past SC. At the least we can let you know if it's going to be borderline.
|
In one sentence you infer you are overworked or at least busy enough to not have time to get the rules revised. In the next sentence you ask for more work - which is it?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:28:00 AM · #6 |
| Such a system would benefit from both the original and the edited image. It is nigh impossible for someone who lacks access to the original unedited image to see what the SC means with the brief statement regarding why an image was DQ'd. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:52:21 AM · #7 |
The database has already begun to develope itself from the time they started listing DQ'ed images at the tail end of the challenge results.
The SC stated (at least twice today) that they are working on a revision of the rules.
There will always be an ongoing tension between the people who want to expand what is allowed in editing for challenges and the SC's need to be able to enforce the rules with the least possible amount of subjective decision making. I would urge the SC, in it's discussions and drafts, to err on the side of ease and clarity of administration. This will no doubt raise the hackles of those who will say the revision is squashing their creativity. But you are going to here that loud complaint no matter where you draw the line so make it easy on yourselves, and future SC members, to enforce; and make it easy for us to understand them.
As always, just my two cents.
|
|
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: 08/11/2025 07:42:59 AM EDT.
