| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2006 03:51:52 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by karmat:
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 ) |
Ugh. :-6 |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:52:22 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by nards656:
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? |
I don't think anyone was arguing that the rules were sensible, just that they are clear ;)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:58:39 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by karmat:
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 |
I said, babe, that according to the logic presented here (in this thread) those photos should be DQed. There are several people here maintaining that having my camera time set incorrectly is a DQable offense. If that's true, I'm history, and if we dig far enough, I bet a lot of other people are too even though it can't be proved. My point is that the hypothetical individual here is only "caught" because he shot his photo after 11PM server time. His photo was shot within the required timeframe. So was mine. Mine, however, was shot BEFORE 11PM. Thus, mine is JUST AS ILLEGAL as his, but I can only be caught by my own conscience. He MIGHT be caught by some outside entity if his photo is reviewed for some other reason. I won't. I'm safe.
Yes, I know you can kill me when I get home. I'm still right. :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 16:02:39. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:01:19 PM · #54 |
Babe? Hidden portfolio? Christmas presents?
*hides in a deep dark hole until the conflagration ends*
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:02:00 PM · #55 |
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 hope not.
From the rules:
You must -
ensure that your camera date and time are correctly set to your local time zone before shooting your entry. If the date recorded in your original image file is not within the specified challenge dates, your entry will be disqualified ΓΆ€“ NO exceptions!
No exceptions.
---
Since others are having a go I will not weigh in on the ethical dilemma presented. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:04:20 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Babe? Hidden portfolio? Christmas presents?
*hides in a deep dark hole until the conflagration ends* |
hehe. he called me babe in public. that's what ranger calls stephanie. :) |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:04:54 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
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 hope not.
[...]
No exceptions.
|
Hard and spiky, dude...hard and spiky.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:06:18 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by mk:
Hard and spiky, dude...hard and spiky. |
You know, I was thinking about you when I wrote that...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:07:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by mk:
Hard and spiky, dude...hard and spiky. |
Have I told you lately how much I love having you back in the forums? |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:07:48 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by alfresco:
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 hope not.
[...rules stating no exceptions...]
No exceptions.
|
Hard and spiky, dude...hard and spiky. |
It goes with my new hair style. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:19:29 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I said, babe, that according to the logic presented here (in this thread) those photos should be DQed. There are several people here maintaining that having my camera time set incorrectly is a DQable offense.
{snip}
Yes, I know you can kill me when I get home. I'm still right. :) |
no. you're wrong. we're not arguing that having your time set wrong on your camera is an automatic DQ... my wife's camera was off about 30mins when i shot a wedding recently... (very annoying when i went to sort them by time and couldn't)
anyway... your hypothetical is not the same. no one is suggesting that the time being off is the DQ'able offense, just that the EXIF date is outside of the challenge period. taken to the extreme, you're suggesting we'd DQ every photo shot w/ a camera more than 1 second off UTC? that's a ridiculous straw man argument... no one is saying that.
but, the rules are explicit... spiky even... that if the EXIF date is outside the challenge period, it's a DQ.
but thanks for playing...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:44:19 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
no. you're wrong. we're not arguing that having your time set wrong on your camera is an automatic DQ... my wife's camera was off about 30mins when i shot a wedding recently... (very annoying when i went to sort them by time and couldn't)
anyway... your hypothetical is not the same. no one is suggesting that the time being off is the DQ'able offense, just that the EXIF date is outside of the challenge period. taken to the extreme, you're suggesting we'd DQ every photo shot w/ a camera more than 1 second off UTC? that's a ridiculous straw man argument... no one is saying that.
but, the rules are explicit... spiky even... that if the EXIF date is outside the challenge period, it's a DQ.
but thanks for playing... |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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' |
Is it a rule or is it NOT a rule? If it is, you gotta enforce it. If it's not, this hypothetical gentleman has no requirement to self report a violation that doesn't exist.
"You must set the time on your camera correctly" IS in the rules. Just as clearly as the part about EXIF date/time. So, by not correctly setting the time in my camera, I have violated the rules. True?
You're gonna ignore that, while our hypothetical guy has to self-report because his EXIF shows he took the picture at a time we all know was impossible???
If the camera time only has to be correct in order to PROVE something (in other words, ONLY IF THE SHOT LEGALITY IS QUESTIONED), but not as a rule in itself, it shouldn't be listed as a rule. Period. There should be a note that the EXIF date itself being wrong is not probable cause for investigation, but can only be an indicator - either for or against - some other rule violation. If the camera doesn't have to be correctly set ALL the time, it doesn't have to be correctly set at 11PM either.
And yes, there is good reason for some level of tolerance here, plus or minus a few minutes, seconds, or whatever SC chooses to allow. But why not one hour, instead of one minute? If SC would allow one hour because of common sense reasoning, why is everyone so adamant that our hypothetical gentleman report a supposed crime just to tie up their resources?
It's okay for all of you to think I'm being a jerk here, but there's a validity to my point if you'll just slow down and think about it. Is the clock setting on my camera a criminal offense in itself or is it simply evidentiary?
**Caps are for emphasis. I'm not shouting. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:49:47 PM · #63 |
Though really, the wording is:
You must:
ensure that your camera date and time are correctly set to your local time zone before shooting your entry. If the date recorded in your original image file is not within the specified challenge dates, your entry will be disqualified ΓΆ€“ NO exceptions!
Which means you really should (or must) set your camera correctly, but the only wording on cause for disqualification is the second sentence - if the recorded date is outside the correct time period.
Originally posted by nards656:
If SC would allow one hour because of common sense reasoning, why is everyone so adamant that our hypothetical gentleman report a supposed crime just to tie up their resources? |
Because those are two different things ? Reporting the violation and punishing the violation are independent acts. If it isn't a big deal, it won't be a big deal.
The ethical thing (which was the original question) is to report it, not decide that the rules don't really apply to you or that you can break/bend them when you like. The sane outcome may or may not be getting DQed, but that's different from if you should bring it up or sweep it under the carpet.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 17:02:58.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 04:59:31 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by nards656:
It's okay for all of you to think I'm being a jerk |
good... glad we have your permission...
:) j/k ;) hehe... and all that other stuff that means i'm only joking...
oh... and what  Gordonsaid...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:03:50 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though really, the wording is:
You must:
ensure that your camera date and time are correctly set to your local time zone before shooting your entry. If the date recorded in your original image file is not within the specified challenge dates, your entry will be disqualified ΓΆ€“ NO exceptions!
Which means you really should (or must) set your camera correctly, but the only wording on cause for disqualification is the second sentence - if the recorded date is outside the correct time period. |
Minor disagreement on my part is that the clause at the bottom says..
An entry will be disqualified when a majority of the Site Council finds that any of the rules above were not followed.
I just happen to think this particular event is clearly eligible for "relief" from any prosecution or accusation of cheating. If it's not, I suppose every one of us should go back and examine the files of every entry we've made since DST changed back to EST to make sure we've not inadvertently violated this rule. If our pictures were made before 11PM EST, we should be okay and the EXIF police will ignore us. If, however, we made our shots at 11:05 PM, we should self report a rules violation and accept the resulting DQ's. Probably plural.
That, to me, is totally ridiculous, but that's what you guys and gals seem to think should happen. Since Dr. Achoo and I seem to be in the minority here, and I'm not even sure we're in agreement, I'll take my piddly stupid arguments and get back to work.
Thanks for your time, all of you. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:12:15 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by nards656:
That, to me, is totally ridiculous, but that's what you guys and gals seem to think should happen. Since Dr. Achoo and I seem to be in the minority here, and I'm not even sure we're in agreement, I'll take my piddly stupid arguments and get back to work.
Thanks for your time, all of you. |
Fair enough.
Where would you draw the line in a clear, unambiguous and fairly enforceable way then ? Also note that most of the discussion wasn't about if this is or isn't a reason to DQ, just that the person should at least own up to it and take the lumps if any that get applied.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 17:13:34.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:14:31 PM · #67 |
OK, just to reiterate my position here:
1) the rules clearly state that having your clock set wrong gets you a DQ if it falls ouside the challenge time. No dispute.
However...
2) the ethical question of "turning yourself in" is one I point to the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Why turn yourself in over a technicality when you already know you were complying with the spirit? You already know you have lost your chance at a Top 5 spot(because we know you are going to get validated and then DQ'd). But if you are coming in 47th or 95th or whatever, the punishment of having that pink line across your portfolio seems to be larger than what fits the crime.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:16:25 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, just to reiterate my position here:
1) the rules clearly state that having your clock set wrong gets you a DQ if it falls ouside the challenge time. No dispute.
However...
2) the ethical question of "turning yourself in" is one I point to the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Why turn yourself in over a technicality when you already know you were complying with the spirit? You already know you have lost your chance at a Top 5 spot(because we know you are going to get validated and then DQ'd). But if you are coming in 47th or 95th or whatever, the punishment of having that pink line across your portfolio seems to be larger than what fits the crime. |
what if it is 6th place. hypothetically speaking? :) |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:23:08 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by karmat:
what if it is 6th place. hypothetically speaking? :) |
Well, I'll be first to admit it gets muddier then. Personally I take a lot of pleasure from being in the Top 10. You get the little star, more people see your pics, etc. I would probably turn myself in if I was finishing that high because I wouldn't want to keep someone else out of the limelight.
But, and I guess this magic number will be different for everybody, down in the middle of the heap it matters little, practically speaking, if you came in 47th or 48th. The amount of harm you are doing to others at that level is negligible.
Just my view of it. It's a gray world, I know.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:28:22 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nards656:
That, to me, is totally ridiculous, but that's what you guys and gals seem to think should happen. Since Dr. Achoo and I seem to be in the minority here, and I'm not even sure we're in agreement, I'll take my piddly stupid arguments and get back to work.
Thanks for your time, all of you. |
Fair enough.
Where would you draw the line in a clear, unambiguous and fairly enforceable way then ? Also note that most of the discussion wasn't about if this is or isn't a reason to DQ, just that the person should at least own up to it and take the lumps if any that get applied. |
I don't really know where to draw the line, and that's the fair truth as I know it. My entry(s) may say "11:55 PM", I don't know. We all know it's probably impossible to make a shot at that time of night, process it, and submit before 12:00AM. So, I technically don't violate the rule, but am I not just as guilty as the OP's hypothetical? But, if his EXIF says "12:01", he's under an obligation to report himself as being illegal. That somehow doesn't seem right. 12:10? 12:15? Where's it okay? I don't know. Is it the "hour" that bothers everyone? What if it wasn't really an hour, but just a few minutes?
My point is that I don't know how to best advise the OP because, while it's an honor thing, it's also OBVIOUS that he did not take the photo outside the submission deadlines. He could NOT have. The site would not have accepted it.
My personal OPINION is that anything within an hour is a point not worth considering, and definitely not something worthy of a DQ. SC really needs to come to a conclusive position here, because it's most probable that many others have committed the same crime and thought it acceptable because they ACTUALLY TOOK THE SHOT LEGALLY.
Please remember that EXIF is only submitted upon request. EXIF is STRIPPED by "save for web". Submission of the original is not required by the rules for all shots.
Again, sorry to be a jerk. :)
PS to add - the rules actually say "Eastern Standard Time" and don't appear to make any allowance for Daylight Savings, anyway. It does refer to "server time", but it might be a good idea to reference the fact that the server does (or does not????) adhere to Daylight Savings time when it is in effect.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 17:32:16. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:28:46 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by karmat:
what if it is 6th place. hypothetically speaking? :) |
Well, I'll be first to admit it gets muddier then. Personally I take a lot of pleasure from being in the Top 10. You get the little star, more people see your pics, etc. I would probably turn myself in if I was finishing that high because I wouldn't want to keep someone else out of the limelight.
But, and I guess this magic number will be different for everybody, down in the middle of the heap it matters little, practically speaking, if you came in 47th or 48th. The amount of harm you are doing to others at that level is negligible.
Just my view of it. It's a gray world, I know. |
Some people compete for brown. If you were last, would you self-DQ ?
On some significant boundary ? 50th ? 100th ? Top 20 ? and on and on. Plenty of people have these sorts of goals in their profiles.
It just isn't so easy to make it cut & dried, which is why the SC get the big bucks.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 17:29:44.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:35:08 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some people compete for brown. If you were last, would you self-DQ ?
On some significant boundary ? 50th ? 100th ? Top 20 ? and on and on. Plenty of people have these sorts of goals in their profiles.
It just isn't so easy to make it cut & dried, which is why the SC get the big bucks. |
I was never making it cut & dried. The boundary for what you personally think would be important for the "self turn in" would likely be different for everybody.
I'll say unequivocally here, IF I had the same situation and my shot was scoring a 5.6, I wouldn't hesitate to just let it ride and take it as a lesson and make sure to fix my camera. Other people might say something quite different.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:38:31 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say unequivocally here, IF I had the same situation and my shot was scoring a 5.6, I wouldn't hesitate to just let it ride and take it as a lesson and make sure to fix my camera. Other people might say something quite different. |
Fair enough. But then you wouldn't have started a thread asking if you should turn yourself in either. If you are ethically troubled enough to start a thread about it, then the answer should be pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:45:30 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
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. |
Ok here's a hypothetical. Suppose you got into a new relationship and after say 6 months things are going great until one day you find an old letter from your ex who is stationed overseas at the time. It goes on to say how wonderful the night was before he shipped out suggesting an intimate encounter. The letter has an incorrect date on it and suggests the event occurred a month and a half into the new relationship. You have no way to prove it was incorrect and knowing the guy you're with he might conclude you cheated and end the relationship. What do you do?
A.) I practice what I preach and show him the letter and tell him I have no proof that I didn't cheat.
or
B) Put the letter back and forget about it. Should he read it in the future so be it.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 05:46:48 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok here's a hypothetical. Suppose you got into a new relationship and after say 6 months things are going great until one day you find an old letter from your ex who is stationed overseas at the time. It goes on to say how wonderful the night was before he shipped out suggesting an intimate encounter. The letter has an incorrect date on it and suggests the event occurred a month and a half into the new relationship. You have no way to prove it was incorrect and knowing the guy you're with he might conclude you cheated and end the relationship. What do you do?
A.) I practice what I preach and show him the letter and tell him I have no proof that I didn't cheat.
or
B) Put the letter back and forget about it. Should he read it in the future so be it. |
Did I check a box at the start of the relationship to say that I'd agreed to these rules ?
|
|
