| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2006 05:53:10 PM · #76 |
I don't think anyone's coming against you, doc. I have no doubt that your opinion is shared by many. It's unfortunate that a situation like the one stated has to be discussed - in a perfect world, no one would mind the oversight, but in this world, rules are in place to prevent chaos.
a good thread overall
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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 05:56:54 PM · #77 |
I just want to clarify something.
Virtually all of us feel that someone who finds something illegal about their entry should self-report. I agree. I'm not trying to skate any rules. The crap that I submit doesn't matter much anyway.
My point is this. More correctly, my question is this... Is an incorrect camera time setting actually a violation of the rules? Most of you seem to say that doesn't matter. I personally feel that if we're going to be anal about the EXIF rule, even though the EXIF data is not required to be submitted, it's somewhat unfair to the OP hypothetical for his shot to be DQed, while mine is allowed to stand. (Mine says 11:55 while his says 12:01). Remember, both shots were taken before midnight submission night and AFTER the challenge was posted.
NOTE: It appears that all my entries since time change are actually legal according to the definition of "ethically legal" as presented by this thread, but that doesn't change my point. Just my concern.
Yes, Karma, I CAN just shut up and change my camera clock setting.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 17:58:34. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 06:03:51 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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 ? |
For this hypothetical, yes. At the begining of the relationship both sides agreed not to cheat and checked off a box to that affect! :P
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 18:03:59. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 06:11:44 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by nards656:
My point is this. More correctly, my question is this... Is an incorrect camera time setting actually a violation of the rules? Most of you seem to say that doesn't matter. I personally feel that if we're going to be anal about the EXIF rule, even though the EXIF data is not required to be submitted, it's somewhat unfair to the OP hypothetical for his shot to be DQed, while mine is allowed to stand. (Mine says 11:55 while his says 12:01). Remember, both shots were taken before midnight submission night and AFTER the challenge was posted.
|
Until our cameras can all directly beam down the time from Greenwich Mean, I think the best we can do is ask that the date be within certain limits. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it's been drawn. For some people, 2 inches over the line or 3 feet or 10 miles is okay but for the sake of ruling ease, it can't cross that line at all. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 06:18:25 PM · #80 |
The EXIF date rules here are good, it's really the only concrete way we can validate if any entry was made during the time when it was supposed to be made. If rules are needed at all, it's good to have at least one clear rule.
That said, I was given leniency for exactly this same thing, way back when before I was on Site Council, because my camera was set to a wrong date. That was before the "no exceptions" thing was put in, at the beginning of when SC started requiring proof via EXIF. Leniency is a good thing. It's not good to come out just cut and dry all the time. It would be just too sad that way. On the other hand, there has to be some sort of cut and dry limits or we'd all go crazy here. I am, however, more than willing to make allowances for circumstances like this one.
But, to me, the need to face up to it is clear cut. If getting a score, or views, or comments is more important than facing up to what you know is outside of the rules, the rules that you checked as adhering to, then I think you have a bit of a problem. If a person can come up with an excuse for overlooking this, regardless of how much the person is not really cheating, it was an accident, then, how can you trust that person to not make excuses for all sorts of other oversights?
I don't know. The question was, should I face up to it? The answer, IMVHO, is, "Yes."
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 06:21:07 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by mk:
Until our cameras can all directly beam down the time from Greenwich Mean, I think the best we can do is ask that the date be within certain limits. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it's been drawn. For some people, 2 inches over the line or 3 feet or 10 miles is okay but for the sake of ruling ease, it can't cross that line at all. |
For sake of rules enforcement, this is the only reasonable position. If the shot was before a SC review, I would be first in line to say, "sorry, rules say DQ. That sucks".
For the sake of the moral or ethical argument about what is "right", I think there is a lot more leeway to allow the shot.
Gordon perhaps hit the nail on the head by pointing out this is all perhaps moot once the thread was brought up. We all know his shot is in violation of the letter of the law and thus should be DQ'd unless the SC wants to mercifully act and allow the shot because of the circumstances (Daylight savings). I don't care if the rules say "no exceptions". Mercy is mercy.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 18:22:46.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 06:22:58 PM · #82 |
To answer  Yanko, I believe trust is the foundation of a good relationship. If my old guy #1 wrote a love letter with a wrong date, then it would be his responsibility to correct the error if necessary. I've discovered the letter and the error. Hopefully, I either destroy the letter or return it to its owner. Frankly, I don't see that your example is strictly parallel to the OP's ethical question since the person with the letter is not the one who created it.
Forgot to conclude, that all said, I'm certainly not going to wait around for guy #2 to find it out. If I need to bring it up to him, I will. If he's half a man he'll trust me more, not less for telling him about it.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 18:27:54. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:20:59 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
To answer Yanko, I believe trust is the foundation of a good relationship. If my old guy #1 wrote a love letter with a wrong date, then it would be his responsibility to correct the error if necessary. I've discovered the letter and the error. Hopefully, I either destroy the letter or return it to its owner. Frankly, I don't see that your example is strictly parallel to the OP's ethical question since the person with the letter is not the one who created it.
Forgot to conclude, that all said, I'm certainly not going to wait around for guy #2 to find it out. If I need to bring it up to him, I will. If he's half a man he'll trust me more, not less for telling him about it. |
Ok so you wouldn't show it to your #2 because it's not your mistake? So I'm confused. How is that any different than not bringing the incorrect date to the SC's attention? Perhaps the incorrect date wasn't Levj's fault also? err I mean his hypothetical friend. :P |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:40:49 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so you wouldn't show it to your #2 because it's not your mistake? So I'm confused. How is that any different than not bringing the incorrect date to the SC's attention? Perhaps the incorrect date wasn't Levj's fault also? err I mean his hypothetical friend. :P |
As I said, I don't think your example perfectly parallel to the OP's ethical dilemma... I assert that one corrects one's own transgressions. So, in other words, I do not necessarily bring it to my #2 because:
a) it is not my error
b) it is not a "contract" with one person (#1 and I had a relationship, now I have a relationship with #2....these are not necessarily inter-connected
Thus, #1's letter has no bearing on my relationship with #2. In the OP's example that is not the case--#1 and #2 are the same and the error is that of the only person responsible within the ethical dilemma posed. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:45:10 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nards656:
My point is this. More correctly, my question is this... Is an incorrect camera time setting actually a violation of the rules? Most of you seem to say that doesn't matter. I personally feel that if we're going to be anal about the EXIF rule, even though the EXIF data is not required to be submitted, it's somewhat unfair to the OP hypothetical for his shot to be DQed, while mine is allowed to stand. (Mine says 11:55 while his says 12:01). Remember, both shots were taken before midnight submission night and AFTER the challenge was posted.
|
Until our cameras can all directly beam down the time from Greenwich Mean, I think the best we can do is ask that the date be within certain limits. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it's been drawn. For some people, 2 inches over the line or 3 feet or 10 miles is okay but for the sake of ruling ease, it can't cross that line at all. |
Yeah, I know. I still bet that if an EXIF said 12:01 they would let him by.
I'm tired of arguing :) Good night to all. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:49:49 PM · #86 |
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.
[...]
No exceptions.
|
Hard and spiky, dude...hard and spiky. |
 |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:57:25 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Yeah, I know. I still bet that if an EXIF said 12:01 they would let him by. |
I can't see how having the camera time set too far forward would be a problem (if we're talking hours). The server sets the cut-off for the end date, so it's impossible to submit a photo late to a challenge. If the EXIF says 2am, so what?
I always thought the date rule existed to prevent people from submitting images from their back catalog. i.e. the important date is the start date of the challenge. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 09:06:17 PM · #88 |
yes, but one could set their camera for one month ahead - shoot away - then go back thru thier archive for a month and still be ok
see the problem?
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by nards656:
Yeah, I know. I still bet that if an EXIF said 12:01 they would let him by. |
I can't see how having the camera time set too far forward would be a problem (if we're talking hours). The server sets the cut-off for the end date, so it's impossible to submit a photo late to a challenge. If the EXIF says 2am, so what?
I always thought the date rule existed to prevent people from submitting images from their back catalog. i.e. the important date is the start date of the challenge. |
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 10:16:53 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by hopper:
yes, but one could set their camera for one month ahead - shoot away - then go back thru thier archive for a month and still be ok
see the problem? |
For the benefit of those who might not have noticed my earlier post, I'd like to reiterate that I planned to submit this to SC for review all along. Earlier today, I did so (I discovered the problem last night, too late to deal with it).
And Drachoo, it's not 5.6 yet. Could ya go vote it up some? ;)
I thought there might be interesting viewpoints on the question, so I started this thread.
I do think the rules should be changed to say the photo can't be taken before the challenge starts.
Hopper, I disagree with you that future dates and times that haven't occured yet are equal to past dates that have. Aside from what now seem to be monthly free studies, there'd be no point in setting your camera ahead. You'd never know what theme was coming.
But more importantly, we do need some level of trust. We trust the folks in Australia, for example. To get in by Sunday on the east coast of the US, they need to shoot by Monday local time, and we accept their claim they're in Australia. And on the other end, we trust them not to enter shots they took Sunday their time but Saturday here, even though their EXIF shows them as being within the challenge dates (I hope I'm getting those time zone differences in the right order).
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 11:38:40 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
For the benefit of those who might not have noticed my earlier post, I'd like to reiterate that I planned to submit this to SC for review all along. Earlier today, I did so (I discovered the problem last night, too late to deal with it). |
You're good there, man. Didn't ya notice no one questioned your intentions? You posed a (hypothetical) query asking what "should" be and some people gave you their viewpoints. You got your pick of the litter on that count. The predominant (I eschew, "popular" in this case)...the predominant point of view was to own up to the error and make it easier on your pillow. Other, and different, questions have been raised but to the original Q I think you have vindicated yourself among the populace. ;-)
Originally posted by levyj413:
I thought there might be interesting viewpoints on the question, so I started this thread. |
Were you disappointed?
>:-} |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 11:46:46 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by levyj413:
I thought there might be interesting viewpoints on the question, so I started this thread. |
Were you disappointed?
>:-} |
No. I think this was very interesting! :)
I am, however, simply stunned that everyone saw right through my clear labeling of this as a purely hypothetical situation that couldn't possibly refer to a real person. *chuckle*
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 11:52:38 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
But more importantly, we do need some level of trust. We trust the folks in Australia, for example. To get in by Sunday on the east coast of the US, they need to shoot by Monday local time, and we accept their claim they're in Australia. And on the other end, we trust them not to enter shots they took Sunday their time but Saturday here, even though their EXIF shows them as being within the challenge dates (I hope I'm getting those time zone differences in the right order). |
Actually I think they can do just that. Otherwise it would unfair on the start time.
If I understand the rules correctly, I live in the central time zone in the US. I have to have my entry in by 11:00 PM on the deadline date.
The new challenge is announced at 11:00 PM (or as soon as roll over is complete) I could shoot for the new challenge before midnight central time (technically on the day before the challenge begin date) and still be within the letter and spirit of the rules.
Am I correct on this?
The challenge week is a week for everyone, a simultaneous week. The start and end times are Eastern time in the US regardless of your local time.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:11:14 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by levyj413:
But more importantly, we do need some level of trust. We trust the folks in Australia, for example. To get in by Sunday on the east coast of the US, they need to shoot by Monday local time, and we accept their claim they're in Australia. And on the other end, we trust them not to enter shots they took Sunday their time but Saturday here, even though their EXIF shows them as being within the challenge dates (I hope I'm getting those time zone differences in the right order). |
Actually I think they can do just that. Otherwise it would unfair on the start time.
If I understand the rules correctly, I live in the central time zone in the US. I have to have my entry in by 11:00 PM on the deadline date.
The new challenge is announced at 11:00 PM (or as soon as roll over is complete) I could shoot for the new challenge before midnight central time (technically on the day before the challenge begin date) and still be within the letter and spirit of the rules.
Am I correct on this?
The challenge week is a week for everyone, a simultaneous week. The start and end times are Eastern time in the US regardless of your local time. |
That's correct. The challenge begins at a specific point in time and everyone has exactly 168 hours to capture their image and submit it to the challenge. Depending on your time zone, the actual hour of the day (and even the day itself) that the challenge begins will vary, but you still have 168 hours from zero hours to accomplish the job.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-11-30 00:11:50. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:11:52 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so you wouldn't show it to your #2 because it's not your mistake? So I'm confused. How is that any different than not bringing the incorrect date to the SC's attention? Perhaps the incorrect date wasn't Levj's fault also? err I mean his hypothetical friend. :P |
As I said, I don't think your example perfectly parallel to the OP's ethical dilemma... I assert that one corrects one's own transgressions. So, in other words, I do not necessarily bring it to my #2 because:
a) it is not my error
b) it is not a "contract" with one person (#1 and I had a relationship, now I have a relationship with #2....these are not necessarily inter-connected
Thus, #1's letter has no bearing on my relationship with #2. In the OP's example that is not the case--#1 and #2 are the same and the error is that of the only person responsible within the ethical dilemma posed. |
Granted, it's not a perfect example, but you're not really addressing my point. Suppose I said it was your fault that the date was incorrect? Now what? Like Levy, you made a technical error that has potentially breeched a contract even though in reality you did nothing wrong. You're saying in levy's case he should bite the bullet even though in reality his shot was taken within the timeframe but in my example you say you wouldn't reveal the letter and hide the fact. That seems to contradict practicing what you preach, IMHO.
Obviously, in my hypothetical example I'm talking about an oral contract where two love birds agree to go "steady" and not see other people.
Message edited by author 2006-11-30 00:16:26. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:21:32 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's correct. The challenge begins at a specific point in time and everyone has exactly 168 hours to capture their image and submit it to the challenge. Depending on your time zone, the actual hour of the day (and even the day itself) that the challenge begins will vary, but you still have 168 hours from zero hours to accomplish the job.
R. |
Right. Let's say a challenge begins on 12/10. You read the challenge in your time zone at 11:00 pm on 12/9. At 11:26 pm on 12/9 in your time zone, you shoot your entry. Your EXIF, which doesn't record time zone, says "12/9, 11:26 pm."
Clearly before the challenge began based solely on the EXIF. But the SC doesn't actually go solely on EXIF. Instead, they ask where you were and they trust you about where you say you were. No DQ.
My larger point, which may have been irretrievably lost now, was that shots with EXIF data outside the time marks for a challenge can be allowed depending on additional information like time zone. And, at the risk of being self-serving, that "it's quite impossible to submit a pic taken after the challenge submission period ended" might be another example of such information.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-11-30 00:25:55.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:21:35 AM · #96 |
LOL, I read the thread title on the front page and thought this would be something along the lines of, "So I took this girl out..."
Seriously, the technicalities will get you every time, whether or not you are well-intentioned. It will always look better for you later if you do the "right" thing today. Even if there isn't truly an ethically "wrong" decision (and I'll leave the debate on whether it is or is not to others), there is usually one answer that is "more right" than the other.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 02:03:23 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by levyj413:
But more importantly, we do need some level of trust. We trust the folks in Australia, for example. To get in by Sunday on the east coast of the US, they need to shoot by Monday local time, and we accept their claim they're in Australia. And on the other end, we trust them not to enter shots they took Sunday their time but Saturday here, even though their EXIF shows them as being within the challenge dates (I hope I'm getting those time zone differences in the right order). |
Actually I think they can do just that. Otherwise it would unfair on the start time.
If I understand the rules correctly, I live in the central time zone in the US. I have to have my entry in by 11:00 PM on the deadline date.
The new challenge is announced at 11:00 PM (or as soon as roll over is complete) I could shoot for the new challenge before midnight central time (technically on the day before the challenge begin date) and still be within the letter and spirit of the rules.
Am I correct on this?
The challenge week is a week for everyone, a simultaneous week. The start and end times are Eastern time in the US regardless of your local time. |
That's correct. The challenge begins at a specific point in time and everyone has exactly 168 hours to capture their image and submit it to the challenge. Depending on your time zone, the actual hour of the day (and even the day itself) that the challenge begins will vary, but you still have 168 hours from zero hours to accomplish the job.
R. |
Unless it's a month long free study. In which case, if the month has 30 days, you will have 720 hours, 31 days and you have 744 hourrs to do the challenge. Of course, if it's in February, there are usually only 672 hours except during a leap year, in which case there would be 696 hours to create your image. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 03:01:03 AM · #98 |
I am in Australia. The Member challenge (for example) is announced at 3-00pm Monday (Qld time). It goes to voting at 3-00pm Monday (Qld time), a week later. We have exactly one week...just like everyone else.
If I took an image before the challenge was announced and I had modified my dates...I would have to be pretty darn pshychic to know what the challenge would be, so I could change my camera dates. Which in my case is ridiculous as I shoot too many clients jobs to worry about changing my dates for a virtual ribbon. This stands for everyone...not just Aussies.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 03:41:14 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Judi:
This stands for everyone...not just Aussies. |
Yes, but the real issue here is whether we can trust Australians or not. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 04:11:38 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Judi:
This stands for everyone...not just Aussies. |
Yes, but the real issue here is whether we can trust Australians or not. |
Hahahaha....ya mate....ya can trust me...ya know...suuuuuuuuuuuure! (wink, wink)
|
|
