Post your bans here - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/24/2007 09:07:36 AM · #176

Originally posted by Grandad:

I have voted on every photo in every challenge over the last 4 months, and just at the moment, donâ��t feel like I want to bother any more, itâ��s not a fair vote, if you canâ��t vote for what you like, that is the whole point, if Iâ��m not free to vote how I see fit, then I just donâ��t want to vote.

That is impressive that you have voted on all those images, and apprieciated by all photographers I am sure.. Please, carry on voting like you have been, dont feel you are being pressurised into voting a certain way. I think it has a lot to do with the quality of images being voted on as well, that is, some of these people were voting on images that clearly didnt deserve a 10. I mean, no one is accusing the Larus's or the Alexsaberis of the world of having friends voting them up, even though I hae consistantly awarded high marks to these 2 'togs. But if someone is voting a set of photos thatare of consistantly average - low quality then surely the alarm bells will start ringing.
In the case of MAK, they obviously saw Hanae was getting 10s off him regardless of the image, and its well known the 2 of them are married, so it doesnt take a genius to work it out. MAK however didnt try to argue his way out of it, so respect to him for that (the dirty little cheat.. :-)
Sometimes there will be cases where someone just genuinely likes the style of a lower performing photographer and consistantly awards them high scores, and I think the SC should allow someone in this position to argue their side of things before deciding whether to slap a ban on them or not.

Anyway, just for the record, I think MAKs punishment is a tad harsh, a month ban would be enough to make an example out of him (and the others) but the fact he put his hands up, took it like a man(!) and apologised is a pretty big move. If he hadnt jumped first then I am sure a few of the others would of just kept quite about it.

So SC, how about reconsidering taking MAKs ban down to a month. I am sure he has learnt from his mistake and I know it wouldnt happen again. What has the site to gain from losing a very active, very valuable & incredibly popular member of the community? The saddest thing is, I had him down as potential Site Council material, but one fears that he has jepodised that (which is fair enough as you couldnt have someone who has been found cheating on the Site COuncil, thats a definte no-no.).

mist

Canon EOS-60D

04/24/2007 09:09:33 AM · #177

Originally posted by Grandad:

exactly, I vote on the photo, so why have I received a ban, I only no one person on this site, and recently gave that person a 2, if that is friend voting, forget it, that is not a free vote.

If you vote according to the photo and have had a ban, then I guess the best thing to do is submit a ticket about it.

04/24/2007 09:11:59 AM · #178

Originally posted by Grandad:

exactly, I vote on the photo, so why have I received a ban, I only no one person on this site, and recently gave that person a 2, if that is friend voting, forget it, that is not a free vote.

OK, fair enough, but apart from the 2, how did you vote on this persons other photos? Be honest! SC are watching.

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 09:13:46.

04/24/2007 09:24:31 AM · #179

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Grandad:

exactly, I vote on the photo, so why have I received a ban, I only no one person on this site, and recently gave that person a 2, if that is friend voting, forget it, that is not a free vote.

OK, fair enough, but apart from the 2, how did you vote on this persons other photos? Be honest! SC are watching.

over the last few challenges, 1 9, otherwise around 5 to 8, I just looked back at some of them to check, I still maintain I have not voted with intent, and we made a pact not to show each other our shots till after voting, my friend is not near the top of my statical list of faverits, I have replied to the e-mail I received

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/24/2007 09:27:18 AM · #180

Originally posted by Grandad:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Grandad:

exactly, I vote on the photo, so why have I received a ban, I only no one person on this site, and recently gave that person a 2, if that is friend voting, forget it, that is not a free vote.

OK, fair enough, but apart from the 2, how did you vote on this persons other photos? Be honest! SC are watching.

over the last few challenges, 1 9, otherwise around 5 to 8, I just looked back at some of them to check, I still maintain I have not voted with intent, and we made a pact not to show each other our shots till after voting, my friend is not near the top of my statical list of faverits, I have replied to the e-mail I received

Seems fair to me, defintely argue your case.. good luck!

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 09:27:37.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/24/2007 09:47:03 AM · #181

Originally posted by scalvert:

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

So if you don't tell anybody you're doing something illegal, then it's OK? Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. None of the people nabbed in this sweep stated their intention to influence a friend's score, and yet they were still caught.

I stated that poorly, I tried to be brief and not waste a lot of time. If I really wanted to cheat and just boost my wifes score i could (via the method I explained) and no one would know. I could not get caught unless I admitied guilt because only my intention is illegal. My actions would be perfectly legal.
I like my wifes's photos. We shoot together and when we enter challeneges, we discussed entries together. Yeah, it sucks, I talk to my wife and spend a lot of time with her, sorry about that. If I do not really like the photo I tell her I don't like it and usually she wouldn't enter it. When she enters photos I really like, I see no reason why I can't vote her a high score or why I should be afraid voting her a high score may trigger a stat cruncher leading to an investigation and a ban when I did not cheat. Especially considering if my sole intention was to boost her rating, I could easily and legally do that by the method I explained and never even be suspeced.

And that is where I see the stupidity in this rule. There is nothing wrong with me rating a photo a 1 or a 10 (or anywhere in between). I can rate any photo any score I want if my intention is pure. Now we are saying that because some people may have bad intentions and take advantage of the freedom to vote as they wish, we need to regulate how people vote when they know the artist (or when it statisitaclly appears like they know an artist). I think that's crap because I'm assumed guilty until proven innocent.

If you have an email that says I intentionally pumped up scores or traded high votes, ban me. If you have proof I put together a network of friends to give me high scores and vote low on everyone else, ban me. But without evidence of wrong doing is it okay to statistically anaylize everyone and investigate us behind the scenes? Is that the community we want here? Everyone is a cheating suspect! How many thousand active members are there? How many cheaters have been caught? With all the talk of catching cheaters around here and all the safegaurds in place you'd think the cheating was wide spread and common. I'm guessing the real cheaters is the vast minority. If the cheating is as wide spread as all our rules and monitoring would have you believe, you people all suck!

Edit - typos

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 09:54:49.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/24/2007 09:49:46 AM · #182

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Grandad:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Grandad:

exactly, I vote on the photo, so why have I received a ban, I only no one person on this site, and recently gave that person a 2, if that is friend voting, forget it, that is not a free vote.

OK, fair enough, but apart from the 2, how did you vote on this persons other photos? Be honest! SC are watching.

over the last few challenges, 1 9, otherwise around 5 to 8, I just looked back at some of them to check, I still maintain I have not voted with intent, and we made a pact not to show each other our shots till after voting, my friend is not near the top of my statical list of faverits, I have replied to the e-mail I received

Seems fair to me, defintely argue your case.. good luck!

the e-mail I received is not specific. I am looking at the only person on here I know, it could be any of the photos I have voted on, so it leaves me with no way of correcting any eror I may have made, not that I think I have made an eror, I have only given 10 to shots I really like, I like my friends work, so even if I had given 10 after 10, I don't see a problem, if the shots are good, and I like them.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/24/2007 10:07:33 AM · #183

Originally posted by LoudDog:

If I really wanted to cheat and just boost my wifes score i could (via the method I explained) and no one would know. I could not get caught unless I admitied guilt because only my intention is illegal.

Wrong. We'd still know, and you'd still be caught eventually.

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I can rate any photo any score I want if my intention is pure.

Yes, you can. We don't assume everyone is a cheating suspect and analyze them behind the scenes. However, if one person is consistently voting another very high (or low) with no correlation to their actual scores, then it will tend to stand out like a neon sign. Is THAT the kind of site we want? Call me crazy, but I expect a photography competition to be judged on the quality of the photos, not the relationship between the voter and photographer. If your intention is indeed pure, then your voting pattern will reflect that and you have nothing to worry about.

PhantomEWO

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/24/2007 10:11:26 AM · #184

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by MAK:

Maybe change their icon to a little prisoner or something LOL...

How about changing it to a rat or pig? As in "Cheating Rat" or "Lying Pig".

Or even a little thumbnail of Ted Bundy as you are on the same level.

Would be far more suitable.

:-)

Oh ya, let go back to the scarlet letter. Maybe a big scarlet C on his chest. ;)

fotomann_forever

04/24/2007 11:33:49 AM · #185

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Oh ya, let go back to the scarlet letter. Maybe a big scarlet C on his chest. ;)

I like!

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/24/2007 11:35:18 AM · #186

Originally posted by karmat:

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.

If you ever find that I AM voting the same as everybody else, please ban me immediately.

:)

p.s. oh, and Art's analogy to yakatme's dq was perfect. yakatme was offended because Art seemed to be condemning him for an intent to cheat, yet that is exactly what yakatme is doing to the people who've been suspended. The SC have not revealed the exact algorithm they used to suspend people, so the people rah-rah-ing the SC are not basing their rah-rahs on any evidence, just an instinctive desire to coo over authority. And the people who were not suspended who are now bashing the SC also are not basing it on any evidence, just an instinctive desire to bash authority. Which makes about 90% of this thread utter bullhockey.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

04/24/2007 11:38:54 AM · #187

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by MAK:

Maybe change their icon to a little prisoner or something LOL...

How about changing it to a rat or pig? As in "Cheating Rat" or "Lying Pig".

Or even a little thumbnail of Ted Bundy as you are on the same level.

Would be far more suitable.

:-)

Oh ya, let go back to the scarlet letter. Maybe a big scarlet C on his chest. ;)

Hey nice I get to wear a C on my chest.... Cooper Man!

Mark Simms - I am in total acceptence of whatever ban i get, I have had a few images banned so I guess they took that into consideration too.. as for site council candidate LMAO I don't quite think I fit the bill there mate... Time is a major factor and now with so many DQ's under my belt too... Im sure they don't need ANOTHER Scalvert... hahahaha sorry Shannon couldn't resist it dude.

Hey bottom line is... I did wrong, no intent to harm but still it was wrong.. Im a badboy on site, I know that, Mark Simms is my only friend so I have to be a badboy.. Im happy with my term of banishment and after it has past I will be back..

Can I also add at this point that I have been overwealmed by all the PMs of support and I would like to thank those people from the bottom of my heart, it has cheered me up at a time when Im feeling fairly low at the moment.. but as Ive always said "BE HAPPY"..."EVERYDAY IS A NEW BLESSING"

aerogurl

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

04/24/2007 12:44:43 PM · #188

it might be none of my business... but I would be interested in seeing what these emails from DPC exactly said.. did people get different emails or did everone get the same? did some get only warnings while others for bans?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/24/2007 12:52:01 PM · #189

Originally posted by aerogurl:

Some got warnings and some got (limited) suspensions -- again, no one has been "banned" or permanently prohibited from participating.

Suspended members can still log in, post in the forums, add to their portfolios, etc. -- they just can't enter or vote in challenges for some period of time.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

04/24/2007 01:00:37 PM · #190

Originally posted by MAK:

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by MAK:

Maybe change their icon to a little prisoner or something LOL...

How about changing it to a rat or pig? As in "Cheating Rat" or "Lying Pig".

Or even a little thumbnail of Ted Bundy as you are on the same level.

Would be far more suitable.

:-)

Oh ya, let go back to the scarlet letter. Maybe a big scarlet C on his chest. ;)

Hey nice I get to wear a C on my chest.... Cooper Man!

Mark Simms - I am in total acceptence of whatever ban i get, I have had a few images banned so I guess they took that into consideration too.. as for site council candidate LMAO I don't quite think I fit the bill there mate... Time is a major factor and now with so many DQ's under my belt too... Im sure they don't need ANOTHER Scalvert... hahahaha sorry Shannon couldn't resist it dude.

Hey bottom line is... I did wrong, no intent to harm but still it was wrong.. Im a badboy on site, I know that, Mark Simms is my only friend so I have to be a badboy.. Im happy with my term of banishment and after it has past I will be back..

Can I also add at this point that I have been overwealmed by all the PMs of support and I would like to thank those people from the bottom of my heart, it has cheered me up at a time when Im feeling fairly low at the moment.. but as Ive always said "BE HAPPY"..."EVERYDAY IS A NEW BLESSING"

MAK, in my book you're a cool guy, suspenders and all. :)

aerogurl

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

04/24/2007 01:17:00 PM · #191

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by aerogurl:
it might be none of my business... but I would be interested in seeing what these emails from DPC exactly said.. did people get different emails or did everone get the same? did some get only warnings while others for bans?

Some got warnings and some got (limited) suspensions -- again, no one has been "banned" or permanently prohibited from participating.

Suspended members can still log in, post in the forums, add to their portfolios, etc. -- they just can't enter or vote in challenges for some period of time.

Thanks for clearing that up GE.. so what is everyone bitching about then? I think its a case of caught red handed and a little ashamed and trying to stir it up, not to understand the rules better (since most rules are pretty much moral or ethical standards) but to put the spotlight elsewhere.

Like I said in a previous thread. SC should refresh memories by reposting the rules here, then close the threads. Just like mother and child, they have been punished, time to talk your way out of it is over, refresh their minds of the rules and send them to their room, and then its over.

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 13:17:50.

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

04/24/2007 01:51:11 PM · #192

Originally posted by aerogurl:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by aerogurl:
it might be none of my business... but I would be interested in seeing what these emails from DPC exactly said.. did people get different emails or did everone get the same? did some get only warnings while others for bans?

Some got warnings and some got (limited) suspensions -- again, no one has been "banned" or permanently prohibited from participating.

Suspended members can still log in, post in the forums, add to their portfolios, etc. -- they just can't enter or vote in challenges for some period of time.

Thanks for clearing that up GE.. so what is everyone bitching about then? I think its a case of caught red handed and a little ashamed and trying to stir it up, not to understand the rules better (since most rules are pretty much moral or ethical standards) but to put the spotlight elsewhere.

Like I said in a previous thread. SC should refresh memories by reposting the rules here, then close the threads. Just like mother and child, they have been punished, time to talk your way out of it is over, refresh their minds of the rules and send them to their room, and then its over.

if your name was pulled out of the hat you may have a slightley different opinion, friend voting never even entered my head, I don't do it, there may be a reason for my e-mail, I don't no, I do no I have a clear consiounce, and I do have a month ban on voting, as far as I'm concerned, it is not justified, I don't even no who I am supposed to have voted high, if this is the thanks I get for voting on over twenty thousand photos in the last few months, I don't think I will bother in the future.

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

04/24/2007 01:54:16 PM · #193

Grandad, check the other thread (or your email). It looks like it was a mistake.

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 13:54:35.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/24/2007 01:58:01 PM · #194

Originally posted by Grandad:

Originally posted by aerogurl:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by aerogurl:
it might be none of my business... but I would be interested in seeing what these emails from DPC exactly said.. did people get different emails or did everone get the same? did some get only warnings while others for bans?

Some got warnings and some got (limited) suspensions -- again, no one has been "banned" or permanently prohibited from participating.

Suspended members can still log in, post in the forums, add to their portfolios, etc. -- they just can't enter or vote in challenges for some period of time.

Thanks for clearing that up GE.. so what is everyone bitching about then? I think its a case of caught red handed and a little ashamed and trying to stir it up, not to understand the rules better (since most rules are pretty much moral or ethical standards) but to put the spotlight elsewhere.

Like I said in a previous thread. SC should refresh memories by reposting the rules here, then close the threads. Just like mother and child, they have been punished, time to talk your way out of it is over, refresh their minds of the rules and send them to their room, and then its over.

if your name was pulled out of the hat you may have a slightley different opinion, friend voting never even entered my head, I don't do it, there may be a reason for my e-mail, I don't no, I do no I have a clear consiounce, and I do have a month ban on voting, as far as I'm concerned, it is not justified, I don't even no who I am supposed to have voted high, if this is the thanks I get for voting on over twenty thousand photos in the last few months, I don't think I will bother in the future.

since writing this I have received a second e-mail from the sc, appologising for there error

petrakka

04/24/2007 02:22:22 PM · #195

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by petrakka:
Man, I don't come here much anymore and I remember why.
I think this site would be better off as a critique forum.

People get their undies way too bunched up about an internet ribbon, it's like they actually believe that DPC is the only form of validation on good photography. Don't you take photos because you enjoy it? I hope you don't take them to impress a bunch of user names that for the most part you haven't even met in person.

There is much good photography here to be seen and gather ideas from... but all this arguing ...and a lot of you guys are older than me. Dang.
And if you like a picture of your wives, well then vote high for it.
And if you like your wife and you like a picture but you can't distinguish if you like the picture because your wife made it, who cares. Vote it high. I'm pretty sure that's how voting in real life works. Though DPC is not real life... it seems like some people tend to forget that though.

I don't really understand this. You state right off the bat that you don't come here much anymore, and then proceed to try and invalidate how other people feel about the challenges and the rewards for winning or placing in them... and *then* proceed to tell people to just go ahead and skirt the rules in place because it all doesn't matter.. to *you*.

So.. it doesn't matter to you. That doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others that place a great deal of time and energy into this site trying to maintain a modicum of integrity. You have all the right in the world to feel the way you do about things here personally, and others do the same.

As for the arguing.. that's life. You can either choose to ignore it, join in for the fun of it, or let it control you. You've chosen to limit taking part. Good for you.

Let other people decide what *they* wish to feel good about and be validated by.

I'm not invalidating what they feel, I'm just saying I hope that people realize because a photo doesn't do well here doesn't mean that it's not good. I'm not telling people to break rules either, I'm saying you should be able to vote on a photo high that you think is good. If you know the person should be of no consequence, you can't help who you know. Others definitely have a right to how they feel, and I am not trying to discourage that. It is my opinion that the integrity of the site has been declining, that's why I stopped visiting as much. I used to be able to learn about photography from this site whereas I just see bickering or nonsense in a lot of the material that I see when I do swing by.
There are still amazing photos being made and submitted and that's why I do come check it out still. I'm just saying I wish people would take a step back and not become so fervently involved in this website, because it is not reality...and the vibe I get here is that some people don't recognize that.

But maybe I'm totally wrong and people here don't actually make pictures solely for a good score on DPC. This is sorta OT now sorry. Point is, if you think a photo is good, you should be able to vote it high, regardless of if you know the person. Then again if you do get banned from the site it should be no big deal because, again, it's just a web site... it is not real life.

rant over. I'll just go look at the pictures here.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/24/2007 02:32:52 PM · #196

Originally posted by petrakka:

...if you think a photo is good, you should be able to vote it high, regardless of if you know the person.

That's exactly what we WANT people to do (as opposed to voting the photo high regardless of whether it's good just because the photographer is your buddy).

roz

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

OM System 90mm f/3.5 Macro IS PRO M.Zuiko Digital ED

04/24/2007 03:31:55 PM · #197

Originally posted by aerogurl:

Roz,
Our vote monitoring software has alerted us to the fact that you have been engaging in "friend voting," consistently voting abnormally high on the images of at least one other user in a manner that is not consistent with your normal voting scale. In addition, you have been receiving abnormally high votes from at least one other user. Attempts to abuse the voting system in this manner are strictly prohibited and as a result, you will be suspended from entering and voting on challenges for a period of one month, to begin with Tuesday's challenges. After that point, we welcome your continued participation at DPC with the understanding that you are to vote fairly on every image or refrain from voting on images that you feel you cannot fairly assess. In addition, you will use caution when sharing your challenge images with other DPC voters, keeping in mind that any sort of vote solicitation is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your cooperation.
DPC Site Council

this is wot i replied ........
hi ...
well thats a bummer .... and extremely upsetting ....... but if i'd known
about this 'friend voting' rule and the penalties, there's no way i'd'v
voted on other 'friends' images more than wot i reckon they were worth, or
speak about my own image in such a way as to give away its appearance ......
& i wouldnt have risked being suspended for a vote that i'd have thought
would make very little difference to the eventual score ....... i had no
idea that the penalty was so steep or that there even was a penalty ....and
my voting depends on so many things ... i try to be as fair as possible, but
i'll often give scores that are possibly a bit higher than the image
deserves in an attempt to inspire that photographer, without actually
knowing who they are ... its hard to explain wot i mean ... and i dont
think that's a bad thing ... especially when i see scores on some other
ppl's amazing images of 1's and 2's ... like the images couldnt by any
stretch of the imagination be a 1 or a 2 ... and yet the voter has given
that score ... who knows why?? ... you might possibly question that sort of
thing as well as this friendly vote rule ...

so maybe you should put this rule very obviously on all the editing rules so
everyone actually knows ... . because i dont think its fair to suddenly find
out about this and be penalised all at the same time, when i had no idea
...... it would'v been nice to receive a warning rather to find out in this
way .....

i have loved my time in dpc and this sudden action i feel goes against the
grain of the supposedly friendly site that i thought dpc was ... rules are
totally necessary, but they have to be obvious ...

if there's any way you'd reconsider your decision i'd be very grateful ....
and i can assure you that now i know about this rule there's no way i'd even
hint at wot my challenge entry looks like, or vote on another person's entry
with a score that i dont think its worth ...
thank you
from roz .......

there were a couple of other emails after this one but i doubt anyone'd be interesting in reading them ...
basically i'm happy with the action of the sc because even tho i wasnt actively trying to cheat there are ppl out there who do and i spose a few innocents are going to be caught in the net ..

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 15:39:47.

04/24/2007 03:40:55 PM · #198

Originally posted by MAK:

Mark Simms is my only friend so I have to be a badboy..

What are you implying?

I resemble that comment.