Post your bans here - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/23/2007 07:40:58 PM · #103

Originally posted by yakatme:

I couldn't care less about your so called honesty now that you've finally been caught....Now, this is where honesty comes in. Not after you've been caught.

I'm curious, did you SELF-DQ for the spot editing or did you get caught?

I wonder why all the righteous indignants don't paint their own DQ's with the same "cheating" brush. I guess people are more accepting of "oops, it was an honest mistake" when it comes to DQs.

While I applaud the efforts to uphold the rules and eliminate this voting bias - I think leaving so many gray areas is counter-productive i.e. "you CAN vote on your friend's / spouse's image, but be objective" - how ridiculous is that? Just make the rule DON'T vote on those entries - skip them.

That said, I know that people recognize other members' images (esp SPs) and I am also certain that affects their vote. I can usually pick up on Scalvert's entries and I can't say that does not influence me a bit. I also know that I have voted some images lower than I normally might when I am just sick of seeing butterflies or whatever (tough luck to the butterflies at the bottom of my randomly ordered images to vote on).

I think the awareness that it is not appropriate to vote on friend's images should be raised frequently and loudly, but in this, the first sweeping enforcement of this rule, the banning is a little excessive I think. But again, I do appreciate the efforts to eliminate this - I'll just have to trust that the SC are taking the appropriate action and also that they have scanned GeneralE's votes on his son's images - hate to see a double-standard. :)

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:41:48.

Nikon D200

04/23/2007 07:46:52 PM · #104

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I think the awareness that it is not appropriate to vote on friend's images should be raised frequently and loudly, but in this, the first sweeping enforcement of this rule, the banning is a little excessive I think. But again, I do appreciate the efforts to eliminate this - I'll just have to trust that the SC are taking the appropriate action and also that they have scanned GeneralE's votes on his son's images - hate to see a double-standard. :)

Except, it's not the first sweeping announcement; and it's not even the second sweeping annoucement.

In addition, no one was banned. The penalties went from warning only (most people) to suspension from voting/submitting only. The forums are still open to all, as is commenting on images.

Lastly, no one was "safe" from a scan. Even SC. That was the point- that everyone be subject to the same scrutiny so that the appearance of impropriety or "witchhunting" could be avoided.

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

04/23/2007 07:47:56 PM · #105

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

and also that they have scanned GeneralE's votes on his son's images - hate to see a double-standard. :)

Having read some of the comments he has left on his son's entries I feel fairly confident he is scrupulously fair!

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

04/23/2007 08:04:29 PM · #106

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

While I applaud the efforts to uphold the rules and eliminate this voting bias - I think leaving so many gray areas is counter-productive i.e. "you CAN vote on your friend's / spouse's image, but be objective" - how ridiculous is that? Just make the rule DON'T vote on those entries - skip them.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. If a person *can* be objective.. and I know for a fact that a large number of people can be.. there is no reason whatsoever for them to be punished for the people that *cannot* be objective.

As for biased scoring on people's style that you recognize.. that's something an individual has to live with on their own terms, but is still quite different than *knowing* a shot before hand is someone's and giving them 10s regardless.. which is what is being targeted here.

*EDIT* and yes, I know you agree with it in principle, just pointing out a couple of things.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 20:05:37.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

04/23/2007 08:35:38 PM · #107

Ok ok ok. I still think it leaves a gray area - it seems less subject to "but I really DO think their photo is the absolute best!" if you just say DON'T vote on them - I don't know why people are objecting to abstaining from voting on them anyway. Comment yes, vote no. But whatever. (edit) How is not allowing people to vote on friends images "being punished"??

L2: Thanks for the links. I guess I am confused as to where the line was drawn this time then - voting up your spouse/friend - is that the offense here? Or is it specifically reciprocal inflation? Or voting up friends and voting down others in the same challenge? If these are already answered in the recent announcement thread, just say so and I'll go look - I admit I haven't thoroughly read all posts there.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 20:37:16.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/23/2007 10:14:44 PM · #108

Turns out I didn't get a ban. I'm guessing the stat cruncher didn't catch my votes as odd because my wife's photo's scored well.

Nikon D200

04/23/2007 10:18:10 PM · #109

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

L2: Thanks for the links. I guess I am confused as to where the line was drawn this time then - voting up your spouse/friend - is that the offense here? Or is it specifically reciprocal inflation? Or voting up friends and voting down others in the same challenge? If these are already answered in the recent announcement thread, just say so and I'll go look - I admit I haven't thoroughly read all posts there.

All of the situations you describe are problematic; though different situations were handled according to their relative impact. More info can definitely be found in the other thread. :)

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/23/2007 10:19:50 PM · #110

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Turns out I didn't get a ban. I'm guessing the stat cruncher didn't catch my votes as odd because my wife's photo's scored well.

I'd hate to think that something as arbitrary as the DPC final score was used in this equation. I am a major deviant in that department.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/23/2007 10:24:15 PM · #111

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Turns out I didn't get a ban. I'm guessing the stat cruncher didn't catch my votes as odd because my wife's photo's scored well.

The "stat cruncher" is only concerned with current behaviors. We aren't dredging up issues from years past.

04/23/2007 10:24:58 PM · #112

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
...if I want to boost my wife/friendâ��s score Iâ��ll just skip their photo while voting low on everything else.

That's illegal, too. You can vote on things you like or dislike all you want, but you can't give somebody a score just because of who they are regardless of the photo quality. If you didn't know which photos were your wife's, then I seriously doubt you'd still give ALL of them a 10. Heck, I wouldn't rate many of my OWN photos a 10.

How is it illegal to not vote on my wife's photo and just be super critical in voting on all the other photos?

asimchoudhri

04/23/2007 10:25:00 PM · #113

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'd hate to think that something as arbitrary as the DPC final score was used in this equation. I am a major deviant in that department.

i would assume that it takes the mean and standard deviation of all votes that a photo got and looked to see where yours was. if you are consistently 2SD above the mean on one photographers photos, but are 0.5 SD above the mean on everyone else and there aren't any other photographers that you average more than 1.0SD above the mean, it's suspicious. Note that I said suspicious, enough for a computer to raise a red flag... a human could look at the trends more carefully.

Alternatively, if you vote 1SD above the mean for someone's photos, and have a similar voting pattern on other photos, then it means there's no impropriety... you voted it high, but you vote higher than the general crowd in general.

There are other ways it could be done, but the above (or a slight modification of it) is where i'd start if i were using a computer algorithm to screen for irregularities.

scalvert

04/23/2007 10:48:46 PM · #114

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...if I want to boost my wife/friendâ��s score Iâ��ll just skip their photo while voting low on everything else.

That's illegal, too...

How is it illegal to not vote on my wife's photo and just be super critical in voting on all the other photos?

Your stated intention is to boost your wife/friend's score. Whether you vote her up or everyone else down, any attempt to skew the voting is still against the rules.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 22:51:39.

04/23/2007 10:52:38 PM · #115

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...if I want to boost my wife/friendâ��s score Iâ��ll just skip their photo while voting low on everything else.

That's illegal, too...

How is it illegal to not vote on my wife's photo and just be super critical in voting on all the other photos?

Your stated intention is to boost your wife/friend's score. That's against the rules no matter what scheme you use to achieve it.

So it's against the rules to vote low on all images and not vote on my wife's image. Got it, thanks.

scalvert

04/23/2007 11:03:12 PM · #116

Originally posted by LoudDog:

So it's against the rules to vote low on all images and not vote on my wife's image. Got it, thanks.

You can try to rationalize it all you want, but it's against the rules to intentionally boost your wife's score no matter how you do it.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/23/2007 11:19:32 PM · #117

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
So it's against the rules to vote low on all images and not vote on my wife's image. Got it, thanks.

You can try to rationalize it all you want, but it's against the rules to intentionally boost your wife's score no matter how you do it.

My point being, if I hadn't stated my illegal intentions I did nothing wrong.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/23/2007 11:21:25 PM · #118

Originally posted by asimchoudhri:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I'd hate to think that something as arbitrary as the DPC final score was used in this equation. I am a major deviant in that department.

i would assume that it takes the mean and standard deviation of all votes that a photo got and looked to see where yours was. if you are consistently 2SD above the mean on one photographers photos, but are 0.5 SD above the mean on everyone else and there aren't any other photographers that you average more than 1.0SD above the mean, it's suspicious. Note that I said suspicious, enough for a computer to raise a red flag... a human could look at the trends more carefully.

Alternatively, if you vote 1SD above the mean for someone's photos, and have a similar voting pattern on other photos, then it means there's no impropriety... you voted it high, but you vote higher than the general crowd in general.

There are other ways it could be done, but the above (or a slight modification of it) is where i'd start if i were using a computer algorithm to screen for irregularities.

How would your algorithm account for someone who votes some photos 2SD above the mean and other photos 2SD below the mean, i.e. someone whose taste doesn't follow the crowd's? Is he or she to receive the Mark?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/23/2007 11:26:42 PM · #119

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...if I want to boost my wife/friendâ��s score Iâ��ll just skip their photo while voting low on everything else.

That's illegal, too...

How is it illegal to not vote on my wife's photo and just be super critical in voting on all the other photos?

Your stated intention is to boost your wife/friend's score. Whether you vote her up or everyone else down, any attempt to skew the voting is still against the rules.

How would you discern those actions from someone who simply abstains from voting on images of people they know, but overall thinks the entries suck and votes accordingly?

The violation lies in the intent. How does SC plan to determine intent?

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 23:26:59.

fotomann_forever

04/23/2007 11:27:18 PM · #120

asimchoudhri

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/23/2007 11:29:37 PM · #121

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by asimchoudhri:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I'd hate to think that something as arbitrary as the DPC final score was used in this equation. I am a major deviant in that department.

i would assume that it takes the mean and standard deviation of all votes that a photo got and looked to see where yours was. if you are consistently 2SD above the mean on one photographers photos, but are 0.5 SD above the mean on everyone else and there aren't any other photographers that you average more than 1.0SD above the mean, it's suspicious. Note that I said suspicious, enough for a computer to raise a red flag... a human could look at the trends more carefully.

Alternatively, if you vote 1SD above the mean for someone's photos, and have a similar voting pattern on other photos, then it means there's no impropriety... you voted it high, but you vote higher than the general crowd in general.

There are other ways it could be done, but the above (or a slight modification of it) is where i'd start if i were using a computer algorithm to screen for irregularities.

How would your algorithm account for someone who votes some photos 2SD above the mean and other photos 2SD below the mean, i.e. someone whose taste doesn't follow the crowd's? Is he or she to receive the Mark?

as i said, it could be a screening mechanism, with human review afterwards. the goal of a screening test is to be very sensitive, even if it's not specific. the human review can add in the specificity. there's no way of determining what someone's actual intentions were, but a human looking at the numbers may be able to tell if something may be fishy...

edit: clarification

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 23:30:26.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

04/23/2007 11:33:20 PM · #122

Posthumous -- You may receive the "mark," but when SC looked at it, individually, that would be seen. To use you, posthumous, you do seem to see everything differently from others. That shows in your votes and comments. If you were "flagged" because you voted someone who consistently scores in the 4s and 5s with 8s, 9s, and 10s, we would have to see if there were other mitigating factors before you were "marked." Your voting pattern wouldn't be that "abnormal," in other words.

(Side note, when

nards656 was in the hospital a couple of weeks ago, one of his nurses was Nurse Posthumous. One of the doctors was Dr. Kuehl (pronounced Kill) and another one was Dr. Dye. Very confidence boosting, but I thought of you.)

Originally posted by yanko:

This applies to someone who enters a lot. What if it's someone that you really like that is more selective? There are many photographers here who don't enter every challenge. Heida and Librodo are good examples of someone who picks their spots. While I haven't given Librodo a 10 every time I have Heida. Granted I've only voted on 3 of her entries but I could see that trend continuing.

Yes, you would probably be flagged in the "screening" but when we looked at it (as we do all of them), we would see that you were quite possibly giving a 10 to a shot that had 50 other 10s and nothing below a 4. We would also see that you were voting regularly, and not just when heida entered.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, everyone who reads this, PLEASE hear and understand, the "scan" looks for patterns. IF a case gets flag, each one is investigated thoroughly on an individual basis. We don't simply look at a list of people that the scan found and say, "BOOM" you're gone. EACH person is studied extensively. It's time consuming, but the SC has the same concern as you do -- we don't won't someone wrongly accused and punished.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 23:34:05.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/23/2007 11:35:39 PM · #123

Originally posted by LoudDog:
My point being, if I hadn't stated my illegal intentions I did nothing wrong.

Maybe you are trying to make a point, but just because you don't state your intentions does not mean you have'nt done someting wrong. Whether you stated it or not if your intentions were to boost your wife/friend's score then it is illegal. By that thinking I can kill someone and not get caught therefore I didn't kill someone. Now that is an extreme comparison but have some scruples.

scalvert