| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2006 11:27:42 PM · #76 |
When this post was first started, Leroy, and myself, wanted to let everyone know we were DQ'd, but accepting of it, and take the opportunity ot apologize to any who were offended.
It was not intended ot turn into a rant, to question SC decisions, or to start a heated discussion. Please allow this post to go back to what it's intended purpose was - an acknowledgement and an apology.
To all of those who have stated openly that they find the images offensive, disturbing, or distasteful ....and I mean every single one of you, I do apologize. My future entries may not always be to your liking, but I will try to keep them in the realm of tastefulness on your behalf.
ShutterPug |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:28:40 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by karmat:
When we vote, we go with the majority. In a couple of the instances ya'll have mentioned, the pictures were from 2003 or 2004. The SC has changed over that time. Those that may have voted no dq on those may not even be on SC now, so it may not be fair to hold up a picture from 3 years ago and say, "But, look." For these shots, the majority of voting SC felt it crossed the line. |
I understand that SC changes regularly, but why aren't past images taken into consideration (assuming the rules haven't changed) when making decisions? That's why original image files are kept by DPC, to be consistent by comparing past and present in regards to editing work to see what was allowed in the past and what wasn't. Just curious why the same thing isn't applied to subject matter.
I'm simply asking, not attacking anyone and not accusing anyone of playing favorites, but it seems obvious that inconsistencies happen regularly here. It's not fair to allow some and not allow others. Seems the precedent was already set...?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:30:38 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by karmat:
When we vote, we go with the majority. In a couple of the instances ya'll have mentioned, the pictures were from 2003 or 2004. The SC has changed over that time. Those that may have voted no dq on those may not even be on SC now, so it may not be fair to hold up a picture from 3 years ago and say, "But, look." For these shots, the majority of voting SC felt it crossed the line. |
Then maybe Drew of Lang need to step up and have the final say in situations such as this. The SC may have changed, but those two have always been around... they own the joint. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:34:36 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
I understand that SC changes regularly, but why aren't past images taken into consideration (assuming the rules haven't changed) when making decisions? That's why original image files are kept by DPC, to be consistent by comparing past and present in regards to editing work to see what was allowed in the past and what wasn't. Just curious why the same thing isn't applied to subject matter.
|
Thats how it works in the legal world. Legal precedence. It is used for that exact reason, to keep judges in check and not rule one way when prior cases with different judges and similar circumstances were ruled another. It keeps things fair.
You raise an excellent point. The SC needs to take into consideration similar photos that have been approved in the past... and actually put aside any personal believes when voting on an image.
It would add credibility to the entire process.
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 23:36:30. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:36:12 PM · #80 |
REPEATING:
When this post was first started, Leroy, and myself, wanted to let everyone know we were DQ'd, but accepting of it, and take the opportunity ot apologize to any who were offended.
It was not intended ot turn into a rant, to question SC decisions, or to start a heated discussion. Please allow this post to go back to what it's intended purpose was - an acknowledgement and an apology.
To all of those who have stated openly that they find the images offensive, disturbing, or distasteful ....and I mean every single one of you, I do apologize. My future entries may not always be to your liking, but I will try to keep them in the realm of tastefulness on your behalf.
ShutterPug |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:30:30 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
My future entries may not always be to your liking, but I will try to keep them in the realm of tastefulness on your behalf. |
WHAT??? no more nudes or sexy photos? PLEASE NOOOOOO.... |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:38:29 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
REPEATING:
When this post was first started, Leroy, and myself, wanted to let everyone know we were DQ'd, but accepting of it, and take the opportunity ot apologize to any who were offended.
It was not intended ot turn into a rant, to question SC decisions, or to start a heated discussion. Please allow this post to go back to what it's intended purpose was - an acknowledgement and an apology.
To all of those who have stated openly that they find the images offensive, disturbing, or distasteful ....and I mean every single one of you, I do apologize. My future entries may not always be to your liking, but I will try to keep them in the realm of tastefulness on your behalf.
ShutterPug |
I love the fact that you might be bummed that both of your images were disqualified. And I definitley appreciate you apologizing to EVERYONE who was offended...I however was not, and am bummed that it did get disqualified!!! Sorry...it wasn't me :) |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:34:10 AM · #83 |
| I have tried to be of an open mind and consider the best interest of the site in many of the last few DQ threads. I believe I have done a good job in this regards. However, in this instance I believe an injustice was done. There is no sexual behaviour shown in either photo. There are no genitals shown in either photo. There is only the sugestion of sexual behavior. I see worse than this every time my wife subjects me to a show on MTV. What I saw in both photo's (and I drew them for voting back to back) was perhaps in bad taste. However in my drawing them back to back for voting I saw the satire that was intended in the mutual posting. Bad taste as I read the rules is NOT grounds for DQ... Collaboritive efforts as I read the rules is not grounds for DQ... Wasn't there back to back ribbon winners not that long ago that used the same scene and switched photogs and models? |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:08:19 AM · #84 |
Thanks for the explanation and apologies Linda and Leroy.....I personally wasn't offended, thought they were humerous and imaginative take on the challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:31:52 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
[
-----------------
The rules as I've read them clearly say that sexual organs in the "act of sex" is not allowed. Fotoman's photo clearly shows that and this photo doesn't. |
I must get my eyes checked again.........where exactly did we see sexual organs in "the act of sex???"
What we have here is perhaps at best a prelude to what might transpire.
There is no way on earth that this can be considered an act of sex.... Heaven forbid if it is.... I can see the cancellation of all kinds of baseball and football games.
Ray |
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:50:41 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by angela_packard:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
REPEATING:
When this post was first started, Leroy, and myself, wanted to let everyone know we were DQ'd, but accepting of it, and take the opportunity ot apologize to any who were offended.
It was not intended ot turn into a rant, to question SC decisions, or to start a heated discussion. Please allow this post to go back to what it's intended purpose was - an acknowledgement and an apology.
To all of those who have stated openly that they find the images offensive, disturbing, or distasteful ....and I mean every single one of you, I do apologize. My future entries may not always be to your liking, but I will try to keep them in the realm of tastefulness on your behalf.
ShutterPug |
I love the fact that you might be bummed that both of your images were disqualified. And I definitley appreciate you apologizing to EVERYONE who was offended...I however was not, and am bummed that it did get disqualified!!! Sorry...it wasn't me :) |
yes, I am bummed. No one wants to get a DQ. But I'm not going to let something as small as this - compared to the real problems in life - get me down. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:58:37 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Make it secure, then let us loose *g* |
Are you sure you really want that then Ken (Art) will be posting all kind of self nude shots and I don't know if I want that to happen. |
LMAO ... That's even out of the realm of things I want to see...
Sorry guys I'm not posting any replies tonight. I've been drinking, danced my butt off with a beautiful lady and had myself a blast. I will get around to looking through the thread tommorrow.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 04:13:53 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I've been drinking, danced my butt off with a beautiful lady and had myself a blast. |
the very same butt that was shown to all on your cheese take? ;) |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:27:15 AM · #89 |
Mrs. Linda and Mr. Leroy,
I liked your idea and realization. Both photos worked as a very funny set and I think were done tastefully for an inside-the-house joke. It's too bad you got disqualified, but I hope this doesn't discourages you to bring forth in the future these kinds of funny images. As I commented while voting, you people are cool, so kudos to your sense of humor, imagination, and courage.
See you in the future challenges. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:45:17 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by sage:
Thats how it works in the legal world. Legal precedence. It is used for that exact reason, to keep judges in check and not rule one way when prior cases with different judges and similar circumstances were ruled another. It keeps things fair.
You raise an excellent point. The SC needs to take into consideration similar photos that have been approved in the past... and actually put aside any personal believes when voting on an image.
It would add credibility to the entire process. |
There are lots of different legal systems, and most of them do not operate on a binding precedent system. They are all expensive and cumbersome.
In any adjudication, the system must be proportionate to the decision being made. A court case costs a lot of money, but is worth it if the stakes are high enouhg. The site council work for free, on a free photo competition website with no prizes.
The system in place is proportionate (in fact, it seems to me to be applied with far more consideration than anyone has a right to expect). No matter what process is applied: the rules and image must be considered subjectively; there will be borderline cases; no system would be foolproof; there will always be the odd aggrieved individual.
I wonder whether people focus on perceived unfairness in judging because the system is otherwise more fairly determined than most? By this, I mean that by making the judging collective and therefore reasonably objective, the subjective element of the DQ process is brought into highlight. If the contest scoring were done by a panel of voters or by one person, participants might be more used to (and therefore more accepting of) the arbitrary nature of the application of judgment.
If so, the fact that people complain so vociferously about this element of the competition process could be taken as a sign that the rest of the process is working pretty well.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 12:49:06.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 12:42:35 PM · #91 |
Must say this has been a n interesting read. So, may opinions on the subject.
I've seen a few attacks on SC, which I will state I don't completely agree with. They do try to do what is best for the site.
Precedence? Law is a bit more straigh-forward than art. I don't know if a precedence system would work here. I do think there should be a super-majority vote on contraversial DQ's, like this ... or for issues like "major element".
As far as the discussion on the "attractiveness" of the models being the reason DQ request were made: I doubt and sincerely hope that is NOT the case. That would be an evil in its own right.
I'm just trying to hit some points I took a mental image of while reading through. I'm sure I've missed some.
I do appreciate that this thread had remained civil. Thanks for all that have commented in a tasteful and civilized manner.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:27:45 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Must say this has been a n interesting read. So, may opinions on the subject.
I've seen a few attacks on SC, which I will state I don't completely agree with. They do try to do what is best for the site.
Precedence? Law is a bit more straigh-forward than art. I don't know if a precedence system would work here. I do think there should be a super-majority vote on contraversial DQ's, like this ... or for issues like "major element".
As far as the discussion on the "attractiveness" of the models being the reason DQ request were made: I doubt and sincerely hope that is NOT the case. That would be an evil in its own right.
I'm just trying to hit some points I took a mental image of while reading through. I'm sure I've missed some.
I do appreciate that this thread had remained civil. Thanks for all that have commented in a tasteful and civilized manner. |
I will admit that I have not read this entire thread, but I read about 75% of it. People seem to be wondering why these very funny (and arguable offensive) images were DQ'd. Well, it has nothing to do with nudity or poor taste or attractiveness of models, or even anonymity of models/photographers, but really to do with the depiction of an act of sex. That's all. We do allow artistic nudes, and we have allowed images of more skin that these two showed, but we don't allow acts of sex. I hope that helps, and I'm encouraged and delighted by the maturity and humor of the two photographers!
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:30:08 PM · #93 |
What about this did this deserve a DQ? Is this not a "SEX ACT"?
Edit: Come on lets be fair!
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 13:32:47. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:40:28 PM · #94 |
If I might venture a few guesses on what happened with grigrigirl's photo, here are my thoughts:
1. implied act, not actual depiction. Her hand isn't down her pants, its just on its way. (much like a lot of the drug photos we get. Picture of the drugs, etc)
2. It was not considered in light of the sex rule. I know I don't recall thinking it fell afoul, and I didn't think the others did until someone mentioned that masturbation is an act of sex, so then I had to reconsider how the application of that rule works.
Now, given all this, what would you like to see happen, thegrandwazoo? I'm open to your ideas.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:42:36 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm encouraged and delighted by the maturity and humor of the two photographers! |
Thank you, Pam. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:44:38 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
What about this did this deserve a DQ? Is this not a "SEX ACT"?
Edit: Come on lets be fair! |
This image was entered in 2004. Not really a fair comparison, but a reasonable person would likely concede the appearance of inconsistency. This has already been addressed by HBunch, who stated that the members of the SC have changed considerably since then.
It might be argued that by presenting this older image as an example, all you are really doing is subjecting it, too, to a DQ.
LegalBeagle made some good points about stakes, foolproof systems, and the application of judgment.
I think the SC as a whole does a remarkable job, and deserve far more cheers than jeers. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:47:07 PM · #97 |
Seems to me she has her hand RIGHT THERE on the spot and she has no pants on (which makes it worse because the act is no longer implied) and is in the act.
What would I have you do?
Well it seems to me you have 2 choices DQ Both Images or none. That̢۪s it! To be even handed there can be no gray area it either is a "SEX ACT" or its not. You can̢۪t have it both ways or face the possibility of hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:50:00 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Seems to me she has her hand RIGHT THERE on the spot and she has no pants on (which makes it worse because the act is no longer implied) and is in the act.
What would I have you do?
Well it seems to me you have 2 choices DQ Both Images or none. That̢۪s it! To be even handed there can be no gray area it either is a "SEX ACT" or its not. You can̢۪t have it both ways or face the possibility of hypocrisy. |
You're not going to be satisfied with this answer, but as a person who argues precedent for a living, and often not getting my way even in light of that, I don't think its fair to re-consider grigrigirl's image now. Yes, I think her image pushes the edge, but I didn't think (at that time) that she had run afoul of the sex act rule. Having had someone make what I felt were valid arguments about masturbation being an act of sex, I have changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:50:34 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by A1275:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
What about this did this deserve a DQ? Is this not a "SEX ACT"?
Edit: Come on lets be fair! |
This image was entered in 2004. Not really a fair comparison, but a reasonable person would likely concede the appearance of inconsistency. This has already been addressed by HBunch, who stated that the members of the SC have changed considerably since then.
It might be argued that by presenting this older image as an example, all you are really doing is subjecting it, too, to a DQ.
LegalBeagle made some good points about stakes, foolproof systems, and the application of judgment.
I think the SC as a whole does a remarkable job, and deserve far more cheers than jeers. |
I have no qualms with the SC. They have a hard job for no pay. Much Respect!
But to say that the images are not a fair comparrison cuz it was entered in 2004. Come on you gotta be kidding right? |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:51:48 PM · #100 |
Just my 2 cents! Take it or leave it.
That is all! |
|
