| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2006 02:23:02 PM · #26 |
Oh, goody. Another thread complaining about SC. Has anyone ever thought that it might be more polite to submit these kind of things via ticket directly to SC instead of always trying to raise a ruckus in the forums? Sorry, Harvey, no personal offense intended, but these public "callouts" of SC really get on my nerves. It would have caused a lot less aggravation for everyone involved to deal with this behind the scenes.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 02:34:09 PM · #27 |
As far as I am concerned, SC do an absolutely bloody marvellous job for our community and they do it as volunteers. Extremely generous. Huge workload.
If they choose to take on additional validation requests, a task which *doesn't* take away from all that they already do, please remember, then hats off to them! It's THEIR choice as to whether they volunteer more of their time, not ours. This tournament is not only fun for participants and observers, it's raising money for MS too. What's the problem with them donating time to it too?
The worry about whether it will lead to too many future similar demands on their time is not wholly relevant, in my opinion. Just because they have chosen to do something once, additional to their regular duties and out of the goodness of their hearts, certainly doesn't oblige them to agree to take on all similar requests in the future.
Message edited by author 2006-05-05 14:34:15.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 02:42:29 PM · #28 |
| I don't think it was a complaint or that any harm was intended. If I'm reading Coolhar right, his concern was that, if not for the MS Tournament, a 15th place image would still be there rather than DQ'd. Fair enough, but remember that the same image could just as easily been questioned by another user for any reason or placed in the top 5 where it would have required validation anyway- with the same result. IMO, it was just a matter of bad luck. |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 03:07:33 PM · #29 |
i think you guys are doing an excellent job. i'm sad for courtenay's DQ but it's no different than any random valifation request ;)
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 03:09:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
i think you guys are doing an excellent job. i'm sad for courtenay's DQ but it's no different than any random valifation request ;) |
I agree Rikki. All except for the valifation part. :P
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 03:10:19 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by Rikki:
i think you guys are doing an excellent job. i'm sad for courtenay's DQ but it's no different than any random valifation request ;) |
I agree Rikki. All except for the valifation part. :P |
doh! i always sucked at sfelinng wen i wuz a chyld :P |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 03:29:07 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by Rikki:
i think you guys are doing an excellent job. i'm sad for courtenay's DQ but it's no different than any random valifation request ;) |
I agree Rikki. All except for the valifation part. :P |
doh! i always sucked at sfelinng wen i wuz a chyld :P |
:D Eye no watt ewe meen. Ben therr dun thatt.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 03:34:31 PM · #33 |
I think the only reason this came up is because of where the request came from - the MS tournament. If it had been outside the tournament, my image would still have been DQed. My own stupid mistake. And, once I realized 1: Terry wanted all entries validated and 2: I didn't have the original, I sent a DQ request on my own image to SC based on the fact that I did not have the original.
Any entry into any challenge can be questioned at any time. This was proven by SC when they went back quite a few challenges to DQ images submitted by someone who previously, obviously cheated. Its parts of the rules of the game. I can request validation on a recent past entry today if I feel a rule was broken.
Besides everyone, its just a flower pic! ;) |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 04:30:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Besides everyone, its just a flower pic! ;) |
yeah it's just "another" flower pic :P
still, like i mentioned, great job at going into the semifinals in a really tough bracket :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 10:05:13 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Oh, goody. Another thread complaining about SC. Has anyone ever thought that it might be more polite to submit these kind of things via ticket directly to SC instead of always trying to raise a ruckus in the forums? Sorry, Harvey, no personal offense intended, but these public "callouts" of SC really get on my nerves. It would have caused a lot less aggravation for everyone involved to deal with this behind the scenes. |
I thought about that. Even started typing a ticket. But I'd rather discuss it publically so everyone, not just SC, can have input. To some extent, their actions have already spoken for them. Let's see what others have to say. And I'm not complaining, just trying to get the whole story. Hope that's ok.
I wish people didn't feel it was necessary to jump to the defense of SC. No one is saying that they are not doing a marvelous job, or that they don't have a big workload. But they are human, and may make mistakes occasionally.
I haven't been paying attention to any of the sidebar competitions so I didn't know until today that the SC was doing validations for the MS. It had even been mentioned in other threads that the the side comps would not take any of the site's resources away from the regular, official competitions.
And this thread that I started, and my posts to it, are not very much at all about dahkota's entry. It was unfortunate that she had to take a DQ because of not being able to submit an original file. From what I know of dahkota I'd bet my butt that she did no illegal editing. I have had to hold out one I shot for Night Shot III for the same reason, I botched the original. But stuff happens, live and learn.
However, what I have learned today raises many questions in my mind. I would like to try to find some answers without the discussion revolving around personalities, if that's possible.
Would any of the other sidebars have been able to use SC validations if they had requested such?
Is it really non-precedent setting, as stdavidson says, or will the organizer, or others, be running this tournament, or others like it, again and again? Will other sidebar comps that pop up and expect the same validation service from SC get it?
Just read the post that has the Official Rules. I was surprized that some of the contestants will be getting cash prizes. I thought all the money collected was going to go to the charity. My summary:
$640.00 collected as entry fees.
Up to $200.00 paid out in cash prize money to contestants.
What happens to the remaining $440.00? One would assume that it is going to be donated to Multiple Sclerous, but that isn't stated in the Official Rules.
Another question arises.
What are the legal ramifications of dpc going from a no-cash-prizes website to one where cash prizes are awarded to it's contestants in an "unofficial" tournament that is organized by one of the website's officials, and run under the websites rules, and officiated by the website's Site Council?
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:13:54 PM · #36 |
I think this might just be a one time thing. Why? There seems to be a lot of negativity surrounding the whole process which is quite sad. The main point of this is to raise money to donate to MS. Let's not all forget this. I understand that there has been a bit of confusion that has raised much awareness. But then again, what hasn't? SC has been doing a great job and while unfortunate for Dahkota, it's just part of the process. Any individual can be asked for a validation during or after the challenges.
I doubt Terry had thought that this would cause much discussion but here we are... discussing yet again.
The money will go to charity and I think everyone who participated knows that. Terry has been doing this for a while and this is just a "gimmick" if you will to not only find a creative way to raise funds but to also get more people interested and participate in the on-going challenges.
We just all did this for fun knowing all the rules. It's going to benefit a good cause so let's just let it be and look forward to other great challenges.
Rikki |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:21:56 PM · #37 |
I hope this not get too beat up. I think he would like to do it again, and I am all for it. But I dont know. This thread probably does not bode well for that.
I got knocked out early by someone, I dont remember who, probably some no name. :)
I would pay to do it again for sure. |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:39:10 PM · #38 |
When I first read this thread, I thought - who cares? But I think coolhar's question is a good one:
Originally posted by coolhar:
...
Another question arises.
What are the legal ramifications of dpc going from a no-cash-prizes website to one where cash prizes are awarded to it's contestants in an "unofficial" tournament that is organized by one of the website's officials, and run under the websites rules, and officiated by the website's Site Council? |
I have seen over and over in many other threads, "it's just a gif of a ribbon, get over it" or "there are plenty of other photo competition sites" - etc. This was to remind us of why we like DPC. I suppose we each have our own reasons, but one of mine is DPC uses friendly competition to encourage individual growth as a photographer.
I think the quasi-officialness of the sidebar competition for money is pretty close to the line.
I don't think anybody is intending to subvert the site - I'm sure it was conceived and participated in for the best of reasons. But maybe a better approach for other such fund-raising sidebars for good causes might be a special gif ribbon? |
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:41:28 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I thought about that. Even started typing a ticket. But I'd rather discuss it publically so everyone, not just SC, can have input. To some extent, their actions have already spoken for them. Let's see what others have to say. And I'm not complaining, just trying to get the whole story. Hope that's ok.
I wish people didn't feel it was necessary to jump to the defense of SC. No one is saying that they are not doing a marvelous job, or that they don't have a big workload. But they are human, and may make mistakes occasionally.
I haven't been paying attention to any of the sidebar competitions so I didn't know until today that the SC was doing validations for the MS. It had even been mentioned in other threads that the the side comps would not take any of the site's resources away from the regular, official competitions.
And this thread that I started, and my posts to it, are not very much at all about dahkota's entry. It was unfortunate that she had to take a DQ because of not being able to submit an original file. From what I know of dahkota I'd bet my butt that she did no illegal editing. I have had to hold out one I shot for Night Shot III for the same reason, I botched the original. But stuff happens, live and learn.
However, what I have learned today raises many questions in my mind. I would like to try to find some answers without the discussion revolving around personalities, if that's possible.
Would any of the other sidebars have been able to use SC validations if they had requested such?
Is it really non-precedent setting, as stdavidson says, or will the organizer, or others, be running this tournament, or others like it, again and again? Will other sidebar comps that pop up and expect the same validation service from SC get it?
Just read the post that has the Official Rules. I was surprized that some of the contestants will be getting cash prizes. I thought all the money collected was going to go to the charity. My summary:
$640.00 collected as entry fees.
Up to $200.00 paid out in cash prize money to contestants.
What happens to the remaining $440.00? One would assume that it is going to be donated to Multiple Sclerous, but that isn't stated in the Official Rules.
Another question arises.
What are the legal ramifications of dpc going from a no-cash-prizes website to one where cash prizes are awarded to it's contestants in an "unofficial" tournament that is organized by one of the website's officials, and run under the websites rules, and officiated by the website's Site Council? |
I'm not involved with this competition and know little about it but If we are receiving extra scrutiny in the challenges I see no problem with this and would have thought you Harvey would have welcomed it. I see no where that this resource is being taken away as you have stated.
You state âBut I'd rather discuss it publically so everyone, not just SC, can have inputâ but the questions that you raise can only be answered by the SC
So I suggest your first instinct was correct and you should raise a ticket and then you can publicly tell us the reply that has transpired as no-one other then SC can answer you questions. The only other point I want to raise is the fact this was a community service to raise money for charity and should be kept in perspective.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:43:36 PM · #40 |
Harvey... Go out side and play!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 12:12:01 AM · #41 |
To whatever extent Harvey's being leaned on to "lighten up", I think it's misplaced. Whether I agree with him or not that this is a potential problem, it's still an issue worth raising. Harvey's done so in a rational manner calculated to cause offense to none, and his opinion is well-examined and stated.
It's an interesting new development, that's for sure: fund-raising tourneys that return cash prizes to participants, with the bulk of the funds raised going to a charity, the whole piggybacking on the DPC challenge superstructure and infrastructure both.
Let me put it this way: I need a new lens and can't afford it. I start up a piggy-back tourney just like this and pay back 50% of the entry fees in cash prizes, keeping the rest for my "lens fund". Think THAT one would fly?
R.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 12:14:39 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me put it this way: I need a new lens and can't afford it. I start up a piggy-back tourney just like this and pay back 50% of the entry fees in cash prizes, keeping the rest for my "lens fund". Think THAT one would fly?
R. |
Um.... No :P
I think this is quite different from what we currently have right now. I dunno maybe it's just me. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 01:06:06 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me put it this way: I need a new lens and can't afford it. I start up a piggy-back tourney just like this and pay back 50% of the entry fees in cash prizes, keeping the rest for my "lens fund". Think THAT one would fly?
R. |
Um.... No :P
I think this is quite different from what we currently have right now. I dunno maybe it's just me. |
Oh, for SURE it's different, but is it a difference of degree or an absolute difference? I think Harvey's saying the door's been opened a tiny crack, and we ought to think about these issues. I agree with that :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:31:33 AM · #44 |
| I think the relevant point is that Terry asked first, and didn't assume anything. Should a proposal seem inappropriate or impractical, we'll just say no ... given the way the contest is set up, I don't think DPC has any more involvement or responsibility than the NCAA has towards your office March Madness pool. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:40:40 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think the relevant point is that Terry asked first, and didn't assume anything. Should a proposal seem inappropriate or impractical, we'll just say no ... given the way the contest is set up, I don't think DPC has any more involvement or responsibility than the NCAA has towards your office March Madness pool. |
Agreed.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 07:51:46 AM · #46 |
After reading thru this thread it almost sounds like a "waah-waah, I didn't get to play" complaint. It was a volunteer tournament for a good cause - first come, first serve on getting in (there were 64 spots).
Kudo's to DPChallenge, and anyone else that volunteered time, for allowing this charity event to have some space on DPChallenge (along with the many other charity events that are announced and sponsored by the DPChallenge community). |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:09:06 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To whatever extent Harvey's being leaned on to "lighten up", I think it's misplaced. Whether I agree with him or not that this is a potential problem, it's still an issue worth raising. Harvey's done so in a rational manner calculated to cause offense to none, and his opinion is well-examined and stated.
It's an interesting new development, that's for sure: fund-raising tourneys that return cash prizes to participants, with the bulk of the funds raised going to a charity, the whole piggybacking on the DPC challenge superstructure and infrastructure both.
Let me put it this way: I need a new lens and can't afford it. I start up a piggy-back tourney just like this and pay back 50% of the entry fees in cash prizes, keeping the rest for my "lens fund". Think THAT one would fly?
R. |
Bear one has to ask what is the real issue....the fact that some people are having a bit more fun out of the everyday challenge or are some just jealous that they not involved in these challenges?
Anything that helps to raise the interest in a worthy charity has surely got be a bonus for everyone involved
The real question has to be are you (not you specific bear) willing to accept change and embrace things that are not your normal ways of doing things.
This site has evolved a hell of lot over the two years that I have been a member and I hope it keeps evolving so we all donât get stale and set in our ways, as far ad I am concerned the best thing about this site is the fact that it is unpredictable we never know what we are shooting from one week to amother.
Please remember this is all about a charity to help people that have or are suffering from a terrible disease. Let all the negative posters have their own little negative posts to satisfy what they think is important in there own little world but what is imorant is that some are supporting a charity nothing else.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:09:54 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
After reading thru this thread it almost sounds like a "waah-waah, I didn't get to play" complaint. It was a volunteer tournament for a good cause - first come, first serve on getting in (there were 64 spots).
Kudo's to DPChallenge, and anyone else that volunteered time, for allowing this charity event to have some space on DPChallenge (along with the many other charity events that are announced and sponsored by the DPChallenge community). |
Well said !!!!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:17:00 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I thought about that. Even started typing a ticket. But I'd rather discuss it publically so everyone, not just SC, can have input. To some extent, their actions have already spoken for them. Let's see what others have to say. And I'm not complaining, just trying to get the whole story. Hope that's ok. |
Ok
Originally posted by coolhar:
I haven't been paying attention to any of the sidebar competitions so I didn't know until today that the SC was doing validations for the MS. It had even been mentioned in other threads that the the side comps would not take any of the site's resources away from the regular, official competitions. |
We haven't been doing validations for the MS tourney. Only the finalist, so these are the first ones. And as far as I can tell, except for a couple of threads discussing them, nothing has been taken away from the site resources. Rather, I (and some others on SC) noticed a dramatic increase in "friendliness" in the forums, and it seemed that the number of reported posts and tickets decreased at one point. Presumeably because folks had something "positive" to focus on.
Originally posted by coolhar:
And this thread that I started, and my posts to it, are not very much at all about dahkota's entry. It was unfortunate that she had to take a DQ because of not being able to submit an original file. From what I know of dahkota I'd bet my butt that she did no illegal editing. I have had to hold out one I shot for Night Shot III for the same reason, I botched the original. But stuff happens, live and learn.
However, what I have learned today raises many questions in my mind. I would like to try to find some answers without the discussion revolving around personalities, if that's possible.
Would any of the other sidebars have been able to use SC validations if they had requested such? |
Yes, any shot can be requested for validation/dq. There are no "rules" saying they can't. In one of these instances, a "coordinator" of one of the sidebars, as you call them, could simply click on the picture after the competition was over and say, "I believe this needs to be validated because . . ." The SC would then review it.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Is it really non-precedent setting, as stdavidson says, or will the organizer, or others, be running this tournament, or others like it, again and again? Will other sidebar comps that pop up and expect the same validation service from SC get it? |
I suspect, because of the positive things that I have read that other tournament will be run. With prizes? I dunno. The first tournament that DrAchoo had also had money involved, but I don't know the particulars about that simply because it (the money part) was within the tourney alone. I don't know if anyone will expect validation, but (see question above)
Originally posted by coohar:
Just read the post that has the Official Rules. I was surprized that some of the contestants will be getting cash prizes. I thought all the money collected was going to go to the charity. My summary:
$640.00 collected as entry fees.
Up to $200.00 paid out in cash prize money to contestants.
What happens to the remaining $440.00? One would assume that it is going to be donated to Multiple Sclerous, but that isn't stated in the Official Rules. |
Call me naive, but I guess I entered the challenge actually trusting the organizer to do with it what was obvious -- donate it to charity. Also, I know a large portion of the entrants (maybe not all, and it is not my business) "unofficially" stated, either in the thread or elsewhere, that even if they won, the money could be kept for MS.
Originally posted by coolhar:
Another question arises.
What are the legal ramifications of dpc going from a no-cash-prizes website to one where cash prizes are awarded to it's contestants in an "unofficial" tournament that is organized by one of the website's officials, and run under the websites rules, and officiated by the website's Site Council? |
As far as I can tell (and I'm no lawyer, but the SC did discuss this briefly) there are none. Though it was organized by Club, whom you are recognizing as site official, it was done as an independent project, not as a dpc sanctioned event. It was run under the website rules, but that is irrelevant in my opinion. So are the "head to head" challenges that pop up occasionally. And finally, they are NOT officiated by the website's SC. As far as the tournament was concerned, other than a participatory nature (some of us were entered and got knocked out earlier on ) we had nothing to do with it. We did validate the finalists, because a member asked us to do so. See answer to question above.
I hope this answers your question. Do you raise some valid issues? I suppose so. But, I can assure you, the SC did actually discuss some of this when the tournaments popped up. What will happen in the future? I don't know. There may be more tournaments, maybe not. There may be some for fund raising, maybe not. Where is the line between raising money for charity and politicking for new equipment? Don't know exactly, but it is there, and there are some things that are definitely across it.
Right now, I see the tournaments, leagues, and "head to heads" as a positive contribution to the site. They have peaked interest and given something positive to focus on. And, in this case, the money raised was given to a good cause. I, for one, hope they continue.
I think I got all the quotes right. hope so. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:26:36 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Right now, I see the tournaments, leagues, and "head to heads" as a positive contribution to the site. They have peaked interest and given something positive to focus on. And, in this case, the money raised was given to a good cause. I, for one, hope they continue.
I think I got all the quotes right. hope so. |
I agree 100% I know me personally I have never entered so many challenges in such a short time.
But I suppose it is only human nature to question and not understand change... I feel sorry for those people.... we all need to embrace change as it the only way to move forward.
|
|
