| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2006 03:04:19 PM · #26 |
We're not evil, I'd have thought most SC would allow +1 hour this close to daylight savings time coming into effect if that's obviously the case.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 15:04:27. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:08:36 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Konador:
We're not evil, I'd have thought most SC would allow +1 hour this close to daylight savings time coming into effect if that's obviously the case. |
Yeah, sorry, you're right. An hour in the future is not problem. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:08:58 PM · #28 |
But it really is quite simple. We all agree to the rules when we enter.
One of the rules is phrased 'you must set the time on your camera correctly'
While we can go off into interesting digressions on cognitive development and a lack of abstract reasoning, it is pretty self-evident that the rules are what they are. Given the current phrasing, this is a violation of the rules.
While I don't doubt you^H^H^Hyour friend didn't mean to break the rules, there they still are, broken, in a clear and unambiguous way.
There is the larger reason for why those particular rules are so unambiguously stated - because there is no other good way to prove it.
People have fallen fowl in various ways of shooting out with the correct date period or with incorrectly set cameras. an equal number have through malice or lack of attention submitted images shot out of the challenge period.
It becomes a long, interesting journey if you think you can abstractly pick and choose which rules really apply to you and that you get to interpret rules any way you feel at a particular time. Particularly when the definition is clear and you just checked a box saying you agreed with them all a few hours before. It doesn't seem a good choice for starting a process of abstract deconstructionism.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:10:23 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Konador:
We're not evil, I'd have thought most SC would allow +1 hour this close to daylight savings time coming into effect if that's obviously the case. |
I think people have been DQed for similar but lesser things though - where the date was obviously correct but the exif was still wrong (e.g., events that only happened within a verifiably correct time period)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:12:18 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Konador:
We're not evil, I'd have thought most SC would allow +1 hour this close to daylight savings time coming into effect if that's obviously the case. |
I think people have been DQed for similar but lesser things though - where the date was obviously correct but the exif was still wrong (e.g., events that only happened within a verifiably correct time period) |
This was my recollection also. Dates have always been one of the "easy," unsubjective rules.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:13:33 PM · #31 |
Does anyone know how to change the date on a Canon EOS 20-D? I lost my manual while traveling this summer and haven't been able to locate on internet. Altough the EXIF data has been a bit off (ie showing I took a photo at 2:00 AM), no challenges have been affected (still within challenge dates). Would like to correct it, though.
Any help would be appreciated! |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:15:33 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
Does anyone know how to change the date on a Canon EOS 20-D? I lost my manual while traveling this summer and haven't been able to locate on internet. Altough the EXIF data has been a bit off (ie showing I took a photo at 2:00 AM), no challenges have been affected (still within challenge dates). Would like to correct it, though.
Any help would be appreciated! |
Canon 20D manual Page 34
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 15:17:40.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:16:44 PM · #33 |
As I see it, ethics is a matter of getting along with yourself while morality is a matter of getting along with others when ethics fails or is irrelevant.
Morally, you - err, your hypothetical friend - agreed to follow the rules of this group when joining. Those rules include the whole date thing. There is no moral grey area -- the group makes this matter black and white.
Ethically, you - uhmm, yeah - made an agreement; if you are fine with having broken that agreement (inadvertantly) then don't sweat it.
Personally, I think it comes down to if you consider not doing something (intentionally not reporting) to be a crime of equal weight with a crime of doing (intentionally submitting an invalid image).
Mistakes happen, they only beome a serious problem when not corrected. I believe we had a recent similar event that resulted from the thinking that an act of omission (not doing) is not a bad thing -- and how badly things can get out of hand after that. If I have the story right, Rikki innocently started showing his images to friends and co-workers. No problem with that, but when he found out they were inflating his votes he choose to not do anything about it. Things got way out of hand after that, but from what I understand it started with the act of ommission.
I would report it. For me intentionally not fixing a problem is just as bad as intentionally creating it. Agreeing to do something and then not doing it (a minor act of treason) is not something I would want to be reminded of everytime I looked at my profile page -- or submitted another image.
David
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:19:30 PM · #34 |
Lest anyone question my motives, my initial intent (purely hypotheticaly, of course) was to self-report. Even so, I wondered what other fine folks at DPC would think about it, so I started this thread.
I hope the discussion continues, but I have sent in the hypothetical item to be hypothetically reviewed. :)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:21:21 PM · #35 |
Gordon has so nicely stated an opinion I was struggling to find the words to express. A rule was broken, period. It doesn't matter which rule you broke, the ethical thing to do when you learn of your error is to try to ammend it.
I strongly believe that each of us should practice what we believe or know to be right. After all, nearly everything else takes practice for the average person to succeed. Here is a seemingly trivial matter where the consequences to self and others are surely limited. If one cannot do what is right when it is easy, how can one trust themselves to do what is right when the stakes are much higher?
I would add to  tah59's statement, "I feel that attention to details like these will, in the long run, make me a better photographer." that it will likely make you a better person.
Edit to add quotation from old Roman guy: "QUOTATION: In my own case, who have spent my whole life in the practice of virtue, right conduct from habitual has become natural.
ATTRIBUTION: Gaius Sallustius Crispus (c. 86ΓΆ€“35/34 B.C.), Roman historian. Jugurtha, LXXXV.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 15:27:47. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:22:49 PM · #36 |
A former boyfriend told me once, "There is no such thing as a hypothetical situation." (This bit of knowledge came in handy later when he asked me, hypothetically of course, what I would do if he went out with someone else )
That being said, since the time changed well over a month ago, my tendancy to be lenient is proportionately declining. :) |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:23:33 PM · #37 |
I've always liked the quote 'Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking'
Maybe the best resolution to this is to report it then have a sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:26:33 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
.... sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
Man, I'm really thin-skinned today, but "sensible and fluffy"? From childish from one user to fluffy from another in about an hour. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:31:03 PM · #39 |
Gordon, thanks. All the manuals I found wanted to charge for the download. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:31:09 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
.... sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
Man, I'm really thin-skinned today, but "sensible and fluffy"? From childish from one user to fluffy from another in about an hour. Oh well. |
At least to me, fluffy is a compliment...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:31:09 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've always liked the quote 'Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking'
Maybe the best resolution to this is to report it then have a sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
I like the quote, but I also like that particular rule being a black and white decision. If there is any leeway in the SC's acting on a violation of it, let it remain in the punishment severity where it has always been -- not in if it is a violation.
Originally posted by ursula:
Man, I'm really thin-skinned today, but "sensible and fluffy"? From childish from one user to fluffy from another in about an hour. Oh well. |
Fluffy is good -- just as Stitch! :D
David
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:32:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've always liked the quote 'Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking'
Maybe the best resolution to this is to report it then have a sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
fluffy?
:/ |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:33:33 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Gordon:
.... sensible and fluffy SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
Man, I'm really thin-skinned today, but "sensible and fluffy"? From childish from one user to fluffy from another in about an hour. Oh well. |
At least to me, fluffy is a compliment... |
Ah, thank you. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:34:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by karmat:
fluffy?
:/ |
Well, y'all don't want to considered be hard and spiky, now do you ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 15:35:05.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:37:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've always liked the quote 'Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking'
Maybe the best resolution to this is to report it then have a sensible and [not fluffy, nope] SC not DQ it as an obvious innocent mistake... |
Yep, exactly my take on it. I also like what DavidC said about not seeing it and always wondering.
Hey, Ursula, how's this? Ursula rocks! She's not only a fantastically talented photographer, she's an amazing cook and she can discuss Voltaire, highrise construction, and which TV show is the best with equal aplomb. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:38:46 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by karmat:
fluffy?
:/ |
Well, y'all don't want to considered be hard and spiky, now do you ? |
Yeah! Those hard and spiky SC suck!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:39:32 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Man, I'm really thin-skinned today, but "sensible and fluffy"? From childish from one user to fluffy from another in about an hour. Oh well. |
Or you're just feeling 'delicate' and fluffy? ;
 |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:42:21 PM · #48 |
HELP!
Forgot: :))))))
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 15:42:43. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:49:10 PM · #49 |
Sorry, gotta weigh in...
I think the prevailing mentality of the thread is that the hypothetical user has some "obvious" requirement to self report an illegal photograph.
I call bullcrap. Since the hypothetical photo COULD NOT have been taken at the time indicated by the EXIF, since that was after the submission deadline, this particular rule is redundant and even exclusionary. According to the logic presented here, if my camera is set to show 10PM when it is actually 11PM on the server, my photo is illegal. That's crap, sorry. Or, what if we scoot it even further back. Since I have not reset my camera time since we came off Daylight Savings Time, ALL MY ENTRIES SINCE ARE ILLEGAL AND I SHOULD SELF REPORT AND BE BOOTED OFF THE SITE!!!!! The "set your camera clock correctly" doesn't JUST apply to entries shot after 11PM server time!!!!! It applies to ALL entries shot at ANY time.
If this hypothetical entry has to be DQed, I maintain that ALL entries shot with the camera set to the wrong time - regardless of which direction, how far, or what time they actually were shot - have to be DQed.
Anybody besides me fall into that ridiculous category?
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:50:56 PM · #50 |
if they are outside of the challenge times, yes. if it is still within challenge times, it doesn't matter.
i may dq you just for posting in this thread and to see how bad a mood you can be in when you get home.
:) 143 |
|
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: 07/18/2025 07:16:05 AM EDT.
