DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> WPL Investigation Results
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 301 - 325 of 342, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/30/2006 10:18:07 PM · #301
Well that pretty well takes care of naming the offenders huh?

MattO

Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed quoted names.
 10/30/2006 10:34:38 PM · #302
Originally posted by MattO:
Well that pretty well takes care of naming the offenders huh?

MattO


Probably just an oversight on Scott's part. I've edited out the names from both posts.

In any case, that's just the names from that team. Not all the suspended individuals were on the same team.

~Terry

Message edited by author 2006-10-30 22:47:00.
 10/30/2006 10:37:54 PM · #303
and i think three or four of them had posted in here, anyway.
 10/30/2006 10:45:45 PM · #304
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by MattO:
Well that pretty well takes care of naming the offenders huh?

MattO


Probably just an oversight on Scott's part. I've edited out the names from both posts.
In any case, that's just the names from that team. Not all the suspended individuals were on the same team.

~Terry


Being who posted it, I assumed he had permission to do so. Didnt see any reason to report a post that I felt was an "approved" post. Next time I'll just leave things alone.

MattO

Message edited by author 2006-10-30 22:48:21.
 10/30/2006 10:49:29 PM · #305
Originally posted by MattO:
Being who posted it, I assumed he had permission to do so. Didnt see any reason to report a post that I felt was an "approved" post. Next time I'll just leave things alone.

MattO


No worries... certainly a reasonable assumption.

~Terry
 10/30/2006 11:40:05 PM · #306
Certainly the Technology exists to lock team members from voting on other team member̢۪s photos, as well as spouses. If as claimed, 7 votes don't materially affect an entry (and ribbons) then team members and spouse should not be opposed to such a lock out. Perhaps a simple message displayed to someone trying to vote on a spouse or team members photo "relationship detected voting not allowed" It could even be set up so that comments can be left without enabling a vote.

A bit more work for DPC owners but builds in integrity. Employment applications ask about relationships to prevent nepotism why not measures by DPC to prevent such?

No it does not prevent models or style exposing the photographer but does do a big service to the community and takes away any guilt, suspicious activity and should make mentorship and collaboration easier.

BTW, in no way am I condoning the activity, I think DPC did a great job of identifying the problem and taking action.

10/30/2006 11:56:48 PM · #307
These "side challenges" are not an official activity of DPC, so it's unlikely we'll be changing the technology just to accomodate them. That doesn't mean there might not be changes, but not specifically to manage the unoffical activities.
 10/31/2006 12:02:10 AM · #308
Is it true that the offenders will only be unable to submit photos during the ban but will still be able to vote?
 10/31/2006 12:20:06 AM · #309
Originally posted by GeneralE:
These "side challenges" are not an official activity of DPC, so it's unlikely we'll be changing the technology just to accomodate them. That doesn't mean there might not be changes, but not specifically to manage the unoffical activities.


May not be official but teams and sides are a big part of DPC. All I am saying is that perhaps there are some simple technical changes that could accommodate this activity that is growing.

Again, I think teams and sides are a great part of DPC and a reason why I enjoy this site.

Just a suggestion (I know I am like the soccer mom who complains and then does not volunteer to help). I know I am stating the obvious and DPC is probably looking at many different avenues.

10/31/2006 03:42:03 AM · #310
Originally posted by neophyte:
Is it true that the offenders will only be unable to submit photos during the ban but will still be able to vote?


Yes, but you can trust that we will not be voting. I don't think any one of us will ever vote again. Atleast I talk for myself on that point.
 10/31/2006 04:52:41 AM · #311
A couple of points stand out as I read this discussion:

Any investigation that does not include asking for the accused version of events can be called a lot of things -- but 'thorough' is not one of them. The accused that is not given a chance to defend themselves before verdicts are cast (official or not) are not judged and found quilty -- but instead have been lynched.

and,

Having seen the images before the challenge ... having talked with the photographer that created it ... having put forward suggestions for the improvement of the images, may or may not (depending on the person) sway their votes. However, it will increase the likelihood the viewer will 'get it', which is what everyone is trying to get the viewer to do. It may not be a good idea to vote on the image -- and an excellent argument made for not voting on the image -- but, it can not be denied it does raise the viewers appreciation of the image. It can raise the appreciation a lot.

All in all it has been a very disappointing read, and shows a desperate need for a healthy assumption of good faith (they explain it better than I would).

David
 10/31/2006 05:48:13 AM · #312
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:

Edit to add: I know you were not one of the offenders. I just wanted to let you know that your team was informed and offered the opportunity to continue in the WPL3 with the recruitment of four new photographers.


You can point your finger, but not away from the fact that we were robbed of our chance by the bad timing. There's no way we could find four new talented photographers in less than 24 hours for our team. It was as much of a chance as if a firing squad would call "RUN" just before pulling the trigger.

One of our member was banned for recieving votes, thus revealing his photos to the other members. That makes me think of the other person banned, not from our team, I think from team Mighty Hormones. I guess he was banned for the same offence. Didn't anybody revieve his votes? Why wasn't then sombody on the Mighty Hormones banned for revealing it's photos?

I know there's no excuse for voting unfairly but I think the same has to apply to all participants. The measures were very harsh (1 year ban from WPL) so I think it's only fair to ask for all the data to be layed out on the table to see if all are treated the same.

Regards, Hrannar (Hauxon)
 10/31/2006 05:58:11 AM · #313
Originally posted by David.C:
A couple of points stand out as I read this discussion:

Any investigation that does not include asking for the accused version of events can be called a lot of things -- but 'thorough' is not one of them. The accused that is not given a chance to defend themselves before verdicts are cast (official or not) are not judged and found quilty -- but instead have been lynched.

and,

Having seen the images before the challenge ... having talked with the photographer that created it ... having put forward suggestions for the improvement of the images, may or may not (depending on the person) sway their votes. However, it will increase the likelihood the viewer will 'get it', which is what everyone is trying to get the viewer to do. It may not be a good idea to vote on the image -- and an excellent argument made for not voting on the image -- but, it can not be denied it does raise the viewers appreciation of the image. It can raise the appreciation a lot.

All in all it has been a very disappointing read, and shows a desperate need for a healthy assumption of good faith (they explain it better than I would).

David


Since they suspected that some participants were voting in a way that they should not, they made a thorough investigation of the VOTES.
The rules have been stated on this thread, time and time again. And it is rather clear that the majority of the dpc'ers seem to have no problems digesting, interpretating, learning and following said rules.
But some do not. I would therefore like to ask those that maintain that they followed the rules a question.
Are you aware of the rule that members of dpc are not supposed to publish here on a dpc-thread any shots they intend to enter in a challenge?
If so, why do you think this rule has been made?
 10/31/2006 06:01:42 AM · #314
Originally posted by David.C:
A couple of points stand out as I read this discussion:

Any investigation that does not include asking for the accused version of events can be called a lot of things -- but 'thorough' is not one of them. The accused that is not given a chance to defend themselves before verdicts are cast (official or not) are not judged and found quilty -- but instead have been lynched.



This website is neither a democracy nor a court of law. The terms and conditions that everyone agrees to do not confer upon people any right to have a judge and jury sit on any decisions that the site admins might make.

Personally I think that the suspensions are a fair and reasonable approach. There's a lot of fuss over nothing in the aftermath, though.
 10/31/2006 07:08:25 AM · #315
Originally posted by Hauxon:
You can point your finger, but not away from the fact that we were robbed of our chance by the bad timing. There's no way we could find four new talented photographers in less than 24 hours for our team. It was as much of a chance as if a firing squad would call "RUN" just before pulling the trigger.


Your team was given the entire first week (so a total of 8 days) to find four new photographers. I'm sure if you wanted to take over as team captain, Scott would probably be agreeable to that. I would suggest sending him a PM rather than lambasting him in a public forum about the timing, which, as it happens, was entirely out of his control.

Originally posted by Hauxon:
One of our member was banned for recieving votes, thus revealing his photos to the other members. That makes me think of the other person banned, not from our team, I think from team Mighty Hormones. I guess he was banned for the same offence. Didn't anybody revieve his votes? Why wasn't then sombody on the Mighty Hormones banned for revealing it's photos?

I know there's no excuse for voting unfairly but I think the same has to apply to all participants. The measures were very harsh (1 year ban from WPL) so I think it's only fair to ask for all the data to be layed out on the table to see if all are treated the same.


No one was banned for revealing his photos. The person you are referring to received a warning, not a ban.

~Terry
 10/31/2006 07:34:56 AM · #316
Originally posted by GuGi:
Originally posted by David.C:
A couple of points stand out as I read this discussion:

Any investigation that does not include asking for the accused version of events can be called a lot of things -- but 'thorough' is not one of them. The accused that is not given a chance to defend themselves before verdicts are cast (official or not) are not judged and found quilty -- but instead have been lynched.

and,

Having seen the images before the challenge ... having talked with the photographer that created it ... having put forward suggestions for the improvement of the images, may or may not (depending on the person) sway their votes. However, it will increase the likelihood the viewer will 'get it', which is what everyone is trying to get the viewer to do. It may not be a good idea to vote on the image -- and an excellent argument made for not voting on the image -- but, it can not be denied it does raise the viewers appreciation of the image. It can raise the appreciation a lot.

All in all it has been a very disappointing read, and shows a desperate need for a healthy assumption of good faith (they explain it better than I would).

David


Since they suspected that some participants were voting in a way that they should not, they made a thorough investigation of the VOTES.
The rules have been stated on this thread, time and time again. And it is rather clear that the majority of the dpc'ers seem to have no problems digesting, interpretating, learning and following said rules.
But some do not. I would therefore like to ask those that maintain that they followed the rules a question.
Are you aware of the rule that members of dpc are not supposed to publish here on a dpc-thread any shots they intend to enter in a challenge?
If so, why do you think this rule has been made?

Why yes, I am quite familiar with the rules, and my reading comprehension is quite good -- perhaps you should reread the relevant rules (as posted by karmat) again:

Originally posted by karmat:
It's in writing!!!!!!

From this page that everyone checks to have read before they enter.

Or this page for the basic challenges.

...

Users whose vote patterns suggest an intent to unfairly disrupt the system will have their votes ignored and may be suspended from site functions.

and this line

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

I honestly don't know how much clearer we can make it. It is in the rules. ...


Both of the statements she bolded above have in common a reference to the intentions of the user. This and the statements that not all offenses are the same imply an attempt to follow the concept of Invincible Error. Sorry for introducing a term with religious origins, but it clearly emphasises the difference between a mistake and a crime.

While it is fairly clear they made a mistake in voting on images they had a direct vested interest in, if for no other reason than the familiarity with the image before the challenge gave it an undue advantage -- it is not clear they did so with the intention of 'disrupting the system' or 'alter the point totals'. What is clear (IMO) is the SC (collectively) made the 'mistake' of redering the verdict that a 'crime' had been committed and handed out punishments for such while never bothering to get a clear indication of intent.

As for the so-called thorough investigation of the votes, the first thing I learned while studying statistics is that an analysis will show you whatever you expect to see.

Originally posted by mist:
This website is neither a democracy nor a court of law. The terms and conditions that everyone agrees to do not confer upon people any right to have a judge and jury sit on any decisions that the site admins might make.

Personally I think that the suspensions are a fair and reasonable approach. There's a lot of fuss over nothing in the aftermath, though.

Agreed. They have ultimate power of life, death, pain and suffering over all of us -- but having the power does not make every use of it the best for the site. I agree the month-long suspensions were reasonable, but situation was (again IMO) very poorly handled in how the investigation was carried out, and escalated from there.

David
 10/31/2006 08:16:24 AM · #317
Originally posted by Hauxon:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:

Edit to add: I know you were not one of the offenders. I just wanted to let you know that your team was informed and offered the opportunity to continue in the WPL3 with the recruitment of four new photographers.


You can point your finger, but not away from the fact that we were robbed of our chance by the bad timing. There's no way we could find four new talented photographers in less than 24 hours for our team. It was as much of a chance as if a firing squad would call "RUN" just before pulling the trigger.

One of our member was banned for recieving votes, thus revealing his photos to the other members. That makes me think of the other person banned, not from our team, I think from team Mighty Hormones. I guess he was banned for the same offence. Didn't anybody revieve his votes? Why wasn't then sombody on the Mighty Hormones banned for revealing it's photos?

I know there's no excuse for voting unfairly but I think the same has to apply to all participants. The measures were very harsh (1 year ban from WPL) so I think it's only fair to ask for all the data to be layed out on the table to see if all are treated the same.

Regards, Hrannar (Hauxon)

I am pointing my finger at the team. If you look at my above post (the one you got this quote from) you will see I went over backward to give your team time to find replacements. Not 24 hours but from October 28th till November 5th. That's eight days. And your team elected not to participate. I even email back making sure I understood the teams position and did not receive a reply and haven't till this day. Therefor I had no other option than to remove the team. I'm sorry you got caught up in this mess but I have no control over your teams decision not to participate in the WPL3.

To even go a step further I will give you the opportunity to be the team captain and recruit six more photographers from now till November 5th. If the remaining teams on the WPL3 does not oppose. BUT WHILE RECRUITING YOU CAN ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE AN ENTRY BUT DO NOT ASK THEIR SCORE IN THE CURRENT CHALLENGE. Please understand I need this info fast because it take over 1000 formulas and links per team.

Does any of the other teams oppose this exception?
SDW
-SDW
 10/31/2006 08:23:05 AM · #318
if you don't fill that team slot, the whole league gets screwed up, no?

Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Originally posted by Hauxon:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:

Edit to add: I know you were not one of the offenders. I just wanted to let you know that your team was informed and offered the opportunity to continue in the WPL3 with the recruitment of four new photographers.


You can point your finger, but not away from the fact that we were robbed of our chance by the bad timing. There's no way we could find four new talented photographers in less than 24 hours for our team. It was as much of a chance as if a firing squad would call "RUN" just before pulling the trigger.

One of our member was banned for recieving votes, thus revealing his photos to the other members. That makes me think of the other person banned, not from our team, I think from team Mighty Hormones. I guess he was banned for the same offence. Didn't anybody revieve his votes? Why wasn't then sombody on the Mighty Hormones banned for revealing it's photos?

I know there's no excuse for voting unfairly but I think the same has to apply to all participants. The measures were very harsh (1 year ban from WPL) so I think it's only fair to ask for all the data to be layed out on the table to see if all are treated the same.

Regards, Hrannar (Hauxon)

I am pointing my finger at the team. If you look at my above post (the one you got this quote from) you will see I went over backward to give your team time to find replacements. Not 24 hours but from October 28th till November 5th. That's eight days. And your team elected not to participate. I even email back making sure I understood the teams position and did not receive a reply and haven't till this day. Therefor I had no other option than to remove the team. I'm sorry you got caught up in this mess but I have no control over your teams decision not to participate in the WPL3.

To even go a step further I will give you the opportunity to be the team captain and recruit six more photographers from now till November 5th. If the remaining teams on the WPL3 does not oppose. BUT WHILE RECRUITING YOU CAN ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE AN ENTRY BUT DO NOT ASK THEIR SCORE IN THE CURRENT CHALLENGE. Please understand I need this info fast because it take over 1000 formulas and links per team.

Does any of the other teams oppose this exception?
SDW
-SDW
10/31/2006 08:24:35 AM · #319
Originally posted by hopper:
if you don't fill that team slot, the whole league gets screwed up, no?

I would imagine it would just be a bye week for the teams aginst that slot. I personally dont have a problem with them building a new team but I do not speak on behalf of my team.
 10/31/2006 08:28:59 AM · #320
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by hopper:
if you don't fill that team slot, the whole league gets screwed up, no?

I would imagine it would just be a bye week for the teams aginst that slot. I personally dont have a problem with them building a new team but I do not speak on behalf of my team.

No, Slot 19 is set up as with an average taken from all 161 photographers beginning averages and divided by 161 giving slot 19 an average of 5.5309. When a team has to play slot 19 they have to beat slot 19 average. If they don't they receive a loss, if they do they receive a win.

I would like to have a team in slot 19 and offered the option if the remaining WPL3 does not object.

Edit to correct slot 19 avg.

Message edited by author 2006-10-31 08:39:31.
 10/31/2006 08:30:07 AM · #321
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
No, Slot 19 is set up as with an average taken from all 161 photographers beginning averages and divided by 161 giving slot 19 an average of 5.7714. When a team has to play slot 19 they have to beat slot 19 average. If they don't they receive a loss, if they do they receive a win.

Oooh - thats a very creative and fitting idea there Scott. Never would have thought of that myself.

Edit - funny that slot 19 could still technically win the WPL.

Message edited by author 2006-10-31 08:30:57.
 10/31/2006 08:30:34 AM · #322
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:

I would like to have a team in slot 19 and offered the option if the remaining WPL3 did not object.


Caleb was looking for a team...
 10/31/2006 08:32:26 AM · #323
Holy cow. The AVERAGE of the WPL as a whole is 5.77something? Wow.
 10/31/2006 08:33:28 AM · #324
Maybe you should post the missing WPL team space-filling request as a new thread in the side challenges forum, in case people who lost the will to live reading this thread might be interested.
 10/31/2006 08:34:31 AM · #325
yea, that seems high ... by like 1/2 a point

Originally posted by Melethia:
Holy cow. The AVERAGE of the WPL as a whole is 5.77something? Wow.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 03:38:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/25/2025 03:38:36 PM EDT.