| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 02:14:05 AM · #201 |
There are two invariables of human nature. 1) We will often choose to take the shortcut instead of put in the entire effort. 2) We are always willing to set the standard just below our feet.
Rikki was my best friend on this site. I stand by him as a person although his actions profoundly disappoint me. How many of us have ever cheated at something? Are his actions any different than our's because of the scale? Would you accept the condemnation of one who had cheated "less" than you?
Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone...or so the saying goes. My stone stays firmly at my side. I will miss Rikki. Justice has been served, but I will always celebrate Mercy. I hope the site can quickly right its course after taking such a blow. If there ever was a time to pull together...it is now. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:14:10 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ursula:
They also knew to vote on 20% of entries for them to count, and did pretty much vote the 20% each time, no more. |
If you vote less than 20%, the voting page REMINDS you in red letters that you need 20% for the votes to count. No mystery there. |
What if they ONLY voted on 20 percent? remove the one vote they gave Rikki and all of a sudden they are sitting on 19.9% and none of their votes count - maybe thats one of the reasons that people are seeing their scores change...
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:15:08 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participate you really need a camera. |
If my camera breaks tomorrow I can't vote? *sniff* |
Actually, point #2 isn't that bad of a suggestion. Only vote if you have submitted three or more photos... |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:17:31 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two invariables of human nature. 1) We will often choose to take the shortcut instead of put in the entire effort. 2) We are always willing to set the standard just below our feet.
Rikki was my best friend on this site. I stand by him as a person although his actions profoundly disappoint me. How many of us have ever cheated at something? Are his actions any different than our's because of the scale? Would you accept the condemnation of one who had cheated "less" than you?
Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone...or so the saying goes. My stone stays firmly at my side. I will miss Rikki. Justice has been served, but I will always celebrate Mercy. I hope the site can quickly right its course after taking such a blow. If there ever was a time to pull together...it is now. |
Well said. I feel hurt by this, have for days now. But you're right, it's time to go on. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:17:44 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participate you really need a camera. |
If my camera breaks tomorrow I can't vote? *sniff* |
Just fake it. Or do we have PO-lice now checking for actual camera ownership? Shall we also ban people who, out of envy, lay claim to a better camera than the one they actually have? jejejeâ¢
R. |
Come on now, with three entries that means you have a camera. If it breaks, you still have proved yourself as not just a"phantom" account that is really not a participant in the photography side. A person who doesn't have a camera or doesn't enter is really not participating. Yes there are people from other sites and businesses that have accounts here that have "silent" accounts. I believe one of the top dogs at B&H have one. That's great, they can listen,learn, and help when people have issues with these businesses. Let's just keep the important part of voting cleaner with active photographers. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:17:50 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two invariables of human nature. 1) We will often choose to take the shortcut instead of put in the entire effort. 2) We are always willing to set the standard just below our feet.
Rikki was my best friend on this site. I stand by him as a person although his actions profoundly disappoint me. How many of us have ever cheated at something? Are his actions any different than our's because of the scale? Would you accept the condemnation of one who had cheated "less" than you?
Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone...or so the saying goes. My stone stays firmly at my side. I will miss Rikki. Justice has been served, but I will always celebrate Mercy. I hope the site can quickly right its course after taking such a blow. If there ever was a time to pull together...it is now. |
Here, here!
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:20:17 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
What if they ONLY voted on 20 percent? remove the one vote they gave Rikki and all of a sudden they are sitting on 19.9% and none of their votes count - maybe thats one of the reasons that people are seeing their scores change... |
Very interesting thought. Would that happen?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:22:08 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
A lot of talk talk talk but no suggestions on what to do. May I suggest the following.
1. Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participat you really need a camera.
2. Do not allow voting until the person has submitted three photos in challenges. This allows time to learn the site and see how others vote. This also elimates in-part the friend and workmate voting. If you want to be a part of dpc then take some pics and submit them. Vote only or thread discussion only is not contributing to the photography learning.
Riki is gone, let's let this one die, it is no longer serving any purpose. |
Regarding the 1st..I started coming on here before I got my 1st SLR. People come on here to to learn, read and post questions on how to take better photos. Maybe don't let non-camera owners vote? But, then they can start a username and put in any camera they want.
2. I have only entered 1 challenge so far. I paid my yearly fee just as you did. Does that mean I can't vote, but you can?
A better suggestion MIGHT be to allow only PAID members to vote. Basically saying....anyone can enter an 'open challenge', but only PAID members can vote. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:23:13 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two invariables of human nature. 1) We will often choose to take the shortcut instead of put in the entire effort. 2) We are always willing to set the standard just below our feet.
Rikki was my best friend on this site. I stand by him as a person although his actions profoundly disappoint me. How many of us have ever cheated at something? Are his actions any different than our's because of the scale? Would you accept the condemnation of one who had cheated "less" than you?
Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone...or so the saying goes. My stone stays firmly at my side. I will miss Rikki. Justice has been served, but I will always celebrate Mercy. I hope the site can quickly right its course after taking such a blow. If there ever was a time to pull together...it is now. |
Well-spoken, Jason. We've all made decisions we regret.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:24:25 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by Faye Pekas:
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
What if they ONLY voted on 20 percent? remove the one vote they gave Rikki and all of a sudden they are sitting on 19.9% and none of their votes count - maybe thats one of the reasons that people are seeing their scores change... |
Very interesting thought. Would that happen? |
That's a question probably only Drew or Langdon can answer, since they'd have to look at the code. It's very plausible though; but since they're both asleep, an answer will have to come later.
I'm off to sleep as well.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 02:25:34.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:25:20 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
What if they ONLY voted on 20 percent? remove the one vote they gave Rikki and all of a sudden they are sitting on 19.9% and none of their votes count - maybe thats one of the reasons that people are seeing their scores change... |
Yep, that could certainly do it. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:27:29 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
What if they ONLY voted on 20 percent? remove the one vote they gave Rikki and all of a sudden they are sitting on 19.9% and none of their votes count - maybe thats one of the reasons that people are seeing their scores change... |
This could be true of anyone who voted on exactly the minumum number to meet the 20% threshold, and who happened to vote on Rikki's picture, knowingly or not. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:28:55 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participate you really need a camera. |
If my camera breaks tomorrow I can't vote? *sniff* |
Just fake it. Or do we have PO-lice now checking for actual camera ownership? Shall we also ban people who, out of envy, lay claim to a better camera than the one they actually have? jejejeâ¢
R. |
Come on now, with three entries that means you have a camera. If it breaks, you still have proved yourself as not just a"phantom" account that is really not a participant in the photography side. A person who doesn't have a camera or doesn't enter is really not participating. Yes there are people from other sites and businesses that have accounts here that have "silent" accounts. I believe one of the top dogs at B&H have one. That's great, they can listen,learn, and help when people have issues with these businesses. Let's just keep the important part of voting cleaner with active photographers. |
That was meant as a humorous response to shannon, sorry. I think your point is well-taken; it might very well be worthwhile to explore restricting voting to those who have entered a minimum number of challenges. Sorry for any confusion.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:30:21 AM · #214 |
Here I was all set to hit the sack to comply with a big sailing day tomorrow. Here I sit in great shock to have learned about this uncomfortable news and my sleep has disappeared.
I loved Rikki and his amazing work. Yes, I believe it is his. Such talent requires no outside help. Besides there is a misguided perception that having friends vote for you while downgrading other entries will really help you. Check out the stats and you will find very little compensation for the dishonesty involved. Where votes reach over 300 it is very hard to move the pointer your way. And then, why should an inferior image edge up past a better entry. Well, we are only talking small degrees of rewards which are not worth the cunning and then the involvement of others. I give an image exactly what it deserves and I will never find the facial expression to ask friends to vote my image higher. Imagine yourselves asking a friend to boost your score. Like how do you hold your composure? What happens when you look into your heart and then your friend can tease you because it knows that you are a fraud. You transfered the power to your friend, you made him an accomplice.
This is indeed very big news. I certainly hope that others will recondider the shame that falls on machinations to beat the system. At the end, you only beat and disgrace yourself.
Well, like most of you, I find Rikki quite an inspiration and indeed a very talented member. This news simply floors me. I do not know all the facts but what is posted is indeed disturbing. According to what I hear and know, the suspension will be a just punishment. Rikki has expressed his contrition. It may be argued that it may lack teeth because it was not voluntary, but then the punishment fits the crime. When you are into the heart of DPC the worst that can happen is to get suspended. I often thought my mouth would do that. However, it will hurt deeply to receive a suspension and then to live with the weight of the deed.
Good luck to you my friend and I look forward to your return. I certainly hope that you will rise like the phoenix leaving behind the bad judgement that clipped your wings.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 02:37:27. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:31:18 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
A lot of talk talk talk but no suggestions on what to do. May I suggest the following.
1. Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participat you really need a camera.
2. Do not allow voting until the person has submitted three photos in challenges. This allows time to learn the site and see how others vote. This also elimates in-part the friend and workmate voting. If you want to be a part of dpc then take some pics and submit them. Vote only or thread discussion only is not contributing to the photography learning.
Riki is gone, let's let this one die, it is no longer serving any purpose. |
Regarding the 1st..I started coming on here before I got my 1st SLR. People come on here to to learn, read and post questions on how to take better photos. Maybe don't let non-camera owners vote? But, then they can start a username and put in any camera they want.
2. I have only entered 1 challenge so far. I paid my yearly fee just as you did. Does that mean I can't vote, but you can?
A better suggestion MIGHT be to allow only PAID members to vote. Basically saying....anyone can enter an 'open challenge', but only PAID members can vote. |
You're right, it has to be done in the way to encourage and not scare people away. With the number of challenges available it should only take at the most three weeks to be qualified to vote. If they pay a membership it will only take two weeks to be qualified to vote. Heck, having to submit before voting is a good thing. Read the comments, see what is good and what is bad as far as enties. During the waiting period allow the non-qualified person to vote as if the votes count. That way they can enjoy that part of the learning. At the end of the votes, do not count the votes unless they ahve submitted to three challenges. This way the entire process is open for learning. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:36:16 AM · #216 |
| Please start a new thread if you want to offer suggestions for changing the way the site is run -- this thread is not the place. Thanks. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:37:35 AM · #217 |
As a couple of people have posted, if someone voted on only 20% of entries, and Rikkis was one of them, Rikkis DQ will remove all their votes, since it is no longer 20%. That is why scores and ribbons have changed hands.
In this case, it might turn out that the ribbons and scores are somehow replaced by Langdon, as to me it doesn't seem fair that innocent people should suffer because of honest votes removed by Rikki's actions.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:39:06 AM · #218 |
Can't this issue be resolved to where people don't have to second guess whether or not it will reoccur at a future date?
If people voting could only vote on 25% of the images in a contest, and the 25% was random generated they would have a significant obstacle in voting for a "friends" image. Some may be disappointed in not being able to choose which images they will vote for but that is minor compared to the additional integrity added to the process.
I think Rikki will be missed. His actions were immature and dishonest but I doubt he's even close to being in the same club as a convicted felon. If this is the worse conduct he's planned or participated within during his life, I would still consider him to be more honest than 95 percent of the rest of us.
Nevertheless his actions caused a level of grief for a number of people and the chosen penalties appear to be appropriate.
With regards to the year ban, why not allow Rikki the incentive to show the level of remorse that he states he feels. I think time off for substantial contribution would work well for everyone. Allow Rikki to put together some comprehensive tutorials, and workshops with each yielding valuable tools for DPC members, reduction of banned time for Rikki, but most important a method of moving Rikkis stated apology from words to actions.
Regardless the year ban is minor punishment. The major infliction will come from the losing the trust of those closest to him.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:44:14 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
With regards to the year ban, why not allow Rikki the incentive to show the level of remorse that he states he feels. I think time off for substantial contribution would work well for everyone. Allow Rikki to put together some comprehensive tutorials, and workshops with each yielding valuable tools for DPC members, reduction of banned time for Rikki, but most important a method of moving Rikkis stated apology from words to actions.
|
 |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:44:37 AM · #220 |
| please don't start changing the rules and banning people from voting and restricting stuff... people always get around this stuff anyway, don't punish the rest of the people on here who are honest |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:47:35 AM · #221 |
I didn't know exactly who to quote about the punishment fitting the crime as it has been brought up by many people. But this is the message attached to the DQ on the images.
Disqualification Message:
Any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph will result in immediate loss of account and a ban from the site. Photographs by any participating parties may also be removed from past or current challenges.
I couldn't really imagine being banned from here as I have gotten myself so invloved in trying to learn and become a better photographer as well as being able to access so many great images for inspiration. I am not trying to hurt Rikki while he is down but isn't this the punishment deemed appropriate by the site?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:53:15 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
...they may have voted others low? |
There was nothing unusual about their other votes cast. |
But it's like having the same votes X 30...
that would have affected the average, I reckon? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:55:21 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
I am not trying to hurt Rikki while he is down but isn't this the punishment deemed appropriate by the site? |
I'm sure a one year suspension is the equivalent of a ban. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:55:54 AM · #224 |
My only question about this whole episode is related to the lack of punishment for Rikki's co-conspirators.
Why are they not being banned from the site? They maliciously sought to circumvent the system and violated the site rules related to voting. It seems now that there are a number of people who, while caught cheating on behalf of someone else were not held accountable for their actions.
The challenge rules state very clearly that these people should be punished in the same way that Rikki was: âAny attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph will result in immediate loss of account and a ban from the site.â (link below)
So whether their voting patterns are consistent on photographs other than Rikkiâs or in challenges that Rikki did not enter should not matter, the rules say they should be banned from DPC.
//dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=10 |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:57:30 AM · #225 |
| If someone's 'friends' voted on average 2 points higher than the rest of the crowd and these friends made up 10% of the votes (not unrealistic on a 300-vote challenge), then the final score would be inflated by 0.2 points, which is pretty substantial in the high-6 region which Rikki seemed to be living in. That can easily mean the difference between top-ten and top-three. No doubt that Rikki is/was a talented photographer, but that extra few tenths of a point can make a huge difference in terms of face-time on the front page. |
|
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: 06/17/2025 04:05:11 PM EDT.
