| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2007 07:55:18 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
It may be amusing, but could still get you suspended if you say the wrong thing. That is a sad reality. |
You got suspended for voting in an illegal manner. Period.
Who do you honestly think is going to buy into this little "I've been oppressed" routine? |
I only care about what is right and wrong. If you think I'm wrong and that I should be suspended for experssing an opinion and for something I've NEVER been suspended for before then tell me the reasons. Not for me but for others. That is what is meaningful. |
Pretty much everyone already *knows* Steve. The fact that a whole whack of people were just recently suspended for the same thing that you decided to publically admit to might have clued you in as well, eh?
This isn't about right and wrong.. it's about you trying to get all the attention you can get.. and LO! I be givin' it to you. Sad day. I'll stop now. I'm sorry for you. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 07:55:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Sting11165:
Friend voting. Obviously, this can't be policed and is on the honor system. But why not have a voting option for Abstain. Then, if you recognize an image, click abstain, and move on with a clear conscience (after leaving a comment, of course). I see Steve's original point about giving encouragement, but I figure a good comment (even if they know it is from me) will be worth a heck of a lot more than one 9 or 10. It is to me at least. |
That's what the "Next" arrow is for. |
Won't argue with you there. It'd just be nice to have a specific thing to click AND it might reinforce the idea with newcomers that voting for friends is frowned upon. And my edit: it'd be nice to have a friend list (for say, my wife, if she was involved) that I'd never get to vote on. Obviously, all voluntary, but if a slight user interface change can reinforce the 'friend voting' rule (and make it easier) why not do it?
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Sting11165:
Vote scaling / low average vote. Most agree that the DPC scale is on the low side. I personally have a really hard time giving a 10. Plus, there is zero motivation to vote higher than everyone else -- it will hurt your own place in the results! So, why not run a statistical analysis on each voter's votes and spread them out in a bell curve with an average of 5 (or 6, or whatever). Then I can vote using whatever scale I want, and it is only the differences between the images which will be counted. |
If you can't vote objectively in a challenge you enter, don't vote on the challenge. Simple enough. The voting scale is 1 - 10. Use it as you see fit, it does not need to be changed because of personal issues.
|
Yeah, that was one of my more extreme ideas, I honestly don't expect it to be implemented. Statistically it is the best way to even out the differences in people's voting strategies. Really, it might just be the matter of granularity -- if we just had a voting system like: "hate it", "ok", "like it", "love it", "amazing" but I could easily do that with the 10 point scale: 3, 5, 6, 7, 9... Actually, I think that's what I already do :) |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 07:57:06 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Sting11165:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Sting11165:
Friend voting. Obviously, this can't be policed and is on the honor system. But why not have a voting option for Abstain. Then, if you recognize an image, click abstain, and move on with a clear conscience (after leaving a comment, of course). I see Steve's original point about giving encouragement, but I figure a good comment (even if they know it is from me) will be worth a heck of a lot more than one 9 or 10. It is to me at least. |
That's what the "Next" arrow is for. |
Won't argue with you there. It'd just be nice to have a specific thing to click AND it might reinforce the idea with newcomers that voting for friends is frowned upon. And my edit: it'd be nice to have a friend list (for say, my wife, if she was involved) that I'd never get to vote on. Obviously, all voluntary, but if a slight user interface change can reinforce the 'friend voting' rule (and make it easier) why not do it?
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Sting11165:
Vote scaling / low average vote. Most agree that the DPC scale is on the low side. I personally have a really hard time giving a 10. Plus, there is zero motivation to vote higher than everyone else -- it will hurt your own place in the results! So, why not run a statistical analysis on each voter's votes and spread them out in a bell curve with an average of 5 (or 6, or whatever). Then I can vote using whatever scale I want, and it is only the differences between the images which will be counted. |
If you can't vote objectively in a challenge you enter, don't vote on the challenge. Simple enough. The voting scale is 1 - 10. Use it as you see fit, it does not need to be changed because of personal issues.
|
Yeah, that was one of my more extreme ideas, I honestly don't expect it to be implemented. Statistically it is the best way to even out the differences in people's voting strategies. Really, it might just be the matter of granularity -- if we just had a voting system like: "hate it", "ok", "like it", "love it", "amazing" but I could easily do that with the 10 point scale: 3, 5, 6, 7, 9... Actually, I think that's what I already do :) |
Hehe.
See, I just don't agree that we need to average out anything. I've never agreed with grade curves in school either. It's a flawed system that favours people with no drive and desire to to better. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:03:00 PM · #54 |
Never warned? You made this post and got a reply:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is this the new DPC?
1-Arbitrarily implement "new tools" that define and punish voters without previous warning, discussion or input from the group.
2-Apply those punishments retroactively.
3-Send out-of-the-blue emails to voters informing them that they are now defined as cheaters and passing out suspensions and other punishments; again without discussion, input or warning.
4-Threaten DPC users that if they don't shape up then tougher penalties await them.
5-Create other "new tools" later on without warning or discussion to further identify and punish DPCers for various yet undefined infractions and apply them retroactively as well. |
Hi Steve,
The only difference between before and now is automation. In addition, there have been several threads dealing with previous instances of friend voting (Rikki, WPL) and each of those threads contained warnings that monitoring was occurring and that there would be consequences for continued friend voting.
Not only that, but in this instance the penalties ranged from simply warnings to more than that, depending on the level of severity of the infraction.
Hope this helps,
L2 |
In the original thread on the matter. Other interesting tidbits here:Vote Monitoring thread
Busted.
Message edited by author 2007-06-06 20:13:39.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:03:46 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All I know for sure is that I got a suspension out of the sky blue for one month. I responded and not one shred of evidence supporting that allegation and suspension was presented to me.
What do you think about that? |
Steve, you know I think the world of you and have the greatest respect for you.... but you can not honestly believe that this suspension is out of the blue. I have been watching this train wreck from the beginning, and you basically thumbed your nose at the SC. You put them into a position where they HAD to give you a suspension as you openly admitted that you were knowingly breaking a rule. |
Ya know, Barbara, I think the world of you to, but this supsension IS out of the blue. That is the real problem. When people can decide arbitrarily, as was true in my case, that because they don't like what someone else says that they can suspend them for no real reason whatsoever then something is wrong. I think you would agree with that.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:10:11 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All I know for sure is that I got a suspension out of the sky blue for one month. I responded and not one shred of evidence supporting that allegation and suspension was presented to me.
What do you think about that? |
Steve, you know I think the world of you and have the greatest respect for you.... but you can not honestly believe that this suspension is out of the blue. I have been watching this train wreck from the beginning, and you basically thumbed your nose at the SC. You put them into a position where they HAD to give you a suspension as you openly admitted that you were knowingly breaking a rule. |
Ya know, Barbara, I think the world of you to, but this supsension IS out of the blue. That is the real problem. When people can decide arbitrarily, as was true in my case, that because they don't like what someone else says that they can suspend them for no real reason whatsoever then something is wrong. I think you would agree with that. |
I don't mean to be rude, but are you for real? You outed yourself. You think that the suspension is "out of the blue"? Are you kidding? Give the rest of us a break and credit for wanting what is fair.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:10:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Yes all voters bow down to MY command. You all shall conform to MY VOTING SCALE. Is that honestly what you got from what I said? COme on. You are just insighting argument for the sake of argument. For the most part we have agreed on most issues, I don't see the debate. |
Let's see here:
from the OP: I just think it's time, esp with the falling scores with the start of the DPL to reexamine what scores "mean", how we vote, and what types of images do well and what don't.
Couple of posts later: My message... spread the love! lol. We could all use a little chilling out being voting nazis IMO.
And then recently: I have to disagree. The thought that every photo ends up where it should in the grand scheme of things is really wrong. There are MANY photos that end up in the top 10 that probably shouldn't and many that end up in the 5s that are remarkable.
It's pretty clear from those statements that you feel that changes to voting need to be made. Not necessarily a bad thing.. but it's a bit of a naive one, as your only solution thus far is adopting a different voting scale.. which can only be taken as suggesting it be adopted by more than just yourself for these changes to be brought about, no?
Anyway, I'm just enjoying the banter. Far be it from me to stop youthful energy from wanting things better, as they see it :)
Just try to realize that just because you think photos don't end up where you don't think they should, doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong with the way they *are* ending up. I'm not trying to pick on you, but how else am I supposed to take your statements? |
why is it that any time someone wants change it's naive? yeesh.
obviously i wanted more people to join in the voting scale but not for it to be a site-adopted sc stamped protocol. Just a way to get out of the dpc low voting rut that many are in. I was in it myself and I didn't know how to get out! |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:11:07 PM · #58 |
nothing like a little drama to get the thread rolling in the wrong direction!
wooo! |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:14:47 PM · #59 |
Ya know...its all very simple. Vote on the image, its merit, wow factor, technical aspects. Don't assume you know who the photographer is (everytime I think I know who it is, its not them so I don't assume I know who took the photo).
That's what its all about. If you know who's photo it is, don't vote. Have the integrity to do the right and honest thing. Have respect for yourself.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:15:44 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I only care about what is right and wrong. |
Starting now? You were suspended for what you DID, not for expressing an opinion (that the overwhelming majority disagreed with). You weren't suspended before because you weren't caught before. Though you likely would have been caught eventually, the neon sign you set up to declare your illegal activity certainly expedited the process. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:19:52 PM · #61 |
THere are a lot of crappy photos hanging in art galleries right now because of who they were taken by, and not because it's a great photo.
A lot of Ansel Adams work is crap by DPC standards. (he only managed an aveage score in his own challenge!!)
People pay a hell of a lot of money for paintings done by certain people that a 6 year old could paint.
Picasso line drawings that took all of 10 seconds to make now sell for millions.
Based on the art classes I've taken and trips to art galleries I've made, half (if not more) of the hoopla about works of art is who made it. Example, no one pays for works with no signature!
But god help us if I happen to know, or have a good idea of who took a photo and score it a 8 instead of a 5 a couple challenges in a row. I'm a cheater, I'm evil, and I should get banned!
But then again, Ansel Adams, Picaso, Monet and Leonardo are not competing against each other in the DPL so they don't really care what people think about their "scores".
Flame away...
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:21:31 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I only care about what is right and wrong. |
Starting now? You were suspended for what you DID, not for expressing an opinion (that the overwhelming majority disagreed with). You weren't suspended before because you weren't caught before. Though you likely would have been caught eventually, the neon sign you set up to declare your illegal activity certainly expedited the process. |
I have to agree with Shannon. I agreed on priciple it doens't matter if Steve confessed if there was no proof, but there was proof of the same kind that was used on everyone else who was caught. That's the end of it. There was nothing unfair here. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:23:44 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All I know for sure is that I got a suspension out of the sky blue for one month. I responded and not one shred of evidence supporting that allegation and suspension was presented to me.
What do you think about that? |
Steve, you know I think the world of you and have the greatest respect for you.... but you can not honestly believe that this suspension is out of the blue. I have been watching this train wreck from the beginning, and you basically thumbed your nose at the SC. You put them into a position where they HAD to give you a suspension as you openly admitted that you were knowingly breaking a rule. |
Ya know, Barbara, I think the world of you to, but this supsension IS out of the blue. That is the real problem. When people can decide arbitrarily, as was true in my case, that because they don't like what someone else says that they can suspend them for no real reason whatsoever then something is wrong. I think you would agree with that. |
Well, I've been offline most of today, and just had to wade through this mess. Steve, I consider you a friend, and I do not make that statement lightly. You are an intelligent, considerate person. Which is why I simply cannot believe what I'm reading. You cannot honestly believe that the way to mentor a photographer is to stroke their ego by voting them all 10s. It makes no sense on the face of it. If you *really* want to help someone, give them criticism that means something. That means voting 'em fairly. All 10s is in no way fair.
Your suspension is *exactly* what was handed out to others who were exchanging unrealistically high votes. Yes, your announcement of the fact precipitated action, but if we'd found out be other means, we'd have reacted the same way. Though I did not participate in the discussion of the suspension, I am in full support of what was done, and it *really* pains me to say that.
You have been a very positive force in this community, and this community regards you as one of its valued, respected members. This little tirade, however, is a wart on that record.
Message edited by author 2007-06-06 20:24:50. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:24:09 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
But god help us if I happen to know, or have a good idea of who took a photo and score it a 8 instead of a 5 a couple challenges in a row. I'm a cheater, I'm evil, and I should get banned!
But then again, Ansel Adams, Picaso, Monet and Leonardo are not competing against each other in the DPL so they don't really care what people think about their "scores".
Flame away... |
It's hilarious to watch all the friend voters come out now and start bitching because they are being caught. I love it!
Keep it up! |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:24:53 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
THere are a lot of crappy photos hanging in art galleries right now because of who they were taken by, and not because it's a great photo.
A lot of Ansel Adams work is crap by DPC standards. (he only managed an aveage score in his own challenge!!)
People pay a hell of a lot of money for paintings done by certain people that a 6 year old could paint.
Picasso line drawings that took all of 10 seconds to make now sell for millions.
Based on the art classes I've taken and trips to art galleries I've made, half (if not more) of the hoopla about works of art is who made it. Example, no one pays for works with no signature!
But god help us if I happen to know, or have a good idea of who took a photo and score it a 8 instead of a 5 a couple challenges in a row. I'm a cheater, I'm evil, and I should get banned!
But then again, Ansel Adams, Picaso, Monet and Leonardo are not competing against each other in the DPL so they don't really care what people think about their "scores".
Flame away... |
lol. The world is a popularity contest. That is why this site has strived for anonymoty, but still it goes back to the popularity of a certain type of image and style. You could say this about anything. Music for example. I've seen many talented bands go unnoticed but hey, Ashlee Simpson is making millions having a computer correct her singing.
Yikes. Crap is a relative term.... and then sometimes it's not. ;) |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:25:09 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
All I know for sure is that I got a suspension out of the sky blue for one month. I responded and not one shred of evidence supporting that allegation and suspension was presented to me.
What do you think about that? |
Steve, you know I think the world of you and have the greatest respect for you.... but you can not honestly believe that this suspension is out of the blue. I have been watching this train wreck from the beginning, and you basically thumbed your nose at the SC. You put them into a position where they HAD to give you a suspension as you openly admitted that you were knowingly breaking a rule. |
Ya know, Barbara, I think the world of you to, but this supsension IS out of the blue. That is the real problem. When people can decide arbitrarily, as was true in my case, that because they don't like what someone else says that they can suspend them for no real reason whatsoever then something is wrong. I think you would agree with that. |
Steve, I tend to agree with a lot of your arguments, you know that. But you were suspended for consistently giving 10s and only 10s to another user. As much as I personally think that people should be able to vote their mind (except for conspiracies), the voting rules mean that you can't do that. And in this case it wasn't even retroactive, because you know about all the times it's been posted that if you can't vote "fairly" on an image when you know whose image it is, don't vote on it at all, especially after the last friend voting episode. Giving 10s across the board is not fair, and I personally doubt it is encouraging to anybody. Nobody's pictures are that good (although  Nobody would probably disagree) :) |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:26:56 PM · #67 |
Steve,
Thank you for trying to help someone out that you recognized as needing help. There are so many people here, myself included, that could have benefited from help of an experienced photographer.
I don't believe anyone should have been suspended.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:27:33 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by LanceW:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
But god help us if I happen to know, or have a good idea of who took a photo and score it a 8 instead of a 5 a couple challenges in a row. I'm a cheater, I'm evil, and I should get banned!
But then again, Ansel Adams, Picaso, Monet and Leonardo are not competing against each other in the DPL so they don't really care what people think about their "scores".
Flame away... |
It's hilarious to watch all the friend voters come out now and start bitching because they are being caught. I love it!
Keep it up! |
I haven't been caught and I'm not bitching. It's called an opinion.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:28:47 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Never warned? You made this post and got a reply:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is this the new DPC?
1-Arbitrarily implement "new tools" that define and punish voters without previous warning, discussion or input from the group.
2-Apply those punishments retroactively.
3-Send out-of-the-blue emails to voters informing them that they are now defined as cheaters and passing out suspensions and other punishments; again without discussion, input or warning.
4-Threaten DPC users that if they don't shape up then tougher penalties await them.
5-Create other "new tools" later on without warning or discussion to further identify and punish DPCers for various yet undefined infractions and apply them retroactively as well. |
Hi Steve,
The only difference between before and now is automation. In addition, there have been several threads dealing with previous instances of friend voting (Rikki, WPL) and each of those threads contained warnings that monitoring was occurring and that there would be consequences for continued friend voting.
Not only that, but in this instance the penalties ranged from simply warnings to more than that, depending on the level of severity of the infraction.
Hope this helps,
L2 |
In the original thread on the matter. Other interesting tidbits here:Vote Monitoring thread
Busted. |
I have no problem with being "busted", but does someone have the fortitude or GUTS to tell me why? That is what chaps my hind!
I wasn't "busted" until I questioned the rules. Is that right? Nope! The RULES must be defined... DO IT!
If you are going to accuse and convict someone of a crime at least have the common decency to define the crime!
Nobody questioned me or told me what I did wrong prior to to the 'offense' for what I was accused, tried and convicted. All, I did was question the rules? Is that right? I don't think so. I don't believe anyone else thinks that either.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:28:54 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Flame away... |
I agree that some works of the "masters" (of any medium) are crap, but this is a competition, not a gallery. We're judging the images without names. That's why you are supposed to remain anonymous during voting (to the extent that's possible), but have your entry "signed" afterwards when it becomes a part of the DPC gallery. Feel free to sell your crap for millions then. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:32:57 PM · #71 |
This is like the freaking play offs it's back and forth for a while and super fun to watch...
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:33:37 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
This is like the freaking play offs it's back and forth for a while and super fun to watch... |
not my intention but I was anticipating it. lol. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:33:39 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by idnic:
Never warned? You made this post and got a reply:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is this the new DPC?
1-Arbitrarily implement "new tools" that define and punish voters without previous warning, discussion or input from the group.
2-Apply those punishments retroactively.
3-Send out-of-the-blue emails to voters informing them that they are now defined as cheaters and passing out suspensions and other punishments; again without discussion, input or warning.
4-Threaten DPC users that if they don't shape up then tougher penalties await them.
5-Create other "new tools" later on without warning or discussion to further identify and punish DPCers for various yet undefined infractions and apply them retroactively as well. |
Hi Steve,
The only difference between before and now is automation. In addition, there have been several threads dealing with previous instances of friend voting (Rikki, WPL) and each of those threads contained warnings that monitoring was occurring and that there would be consequences for continued friend voting.
Not only that, but in this instance the penalties ranged from simply warnings to more than that, depending on the level of severity of the infraction.
Hope this helps,
L2 |
In the original thread on the matter. Other interesting tidbits here:Vote Monitoring thread
Busted. |
I have no problem with being "busted", but does someone have the fortitude or GUTS to tell me why? That is what chaps my hind!
I wasn't "busted" until I questioned the rules. Is that right? Nope! The RULES must be defined... DO IT!
If you are going to accuse and convict someone of a crime at least have the common decency to define the crime!
Nobody questioned me or told me what I did wrong prior to to the 'offense' for what I was accused, tried and convicted. All, I did was question the rules? Is that right? I don't think so. I don't believe anyone else thinks that either. |
You started the thread where you explained how you broke the rules. You stated in the first thread very boldly how you would pick a "friend's" photo over my hypothetical great image in a challenge strictly on the basis that he/she was your friend not on the merit of the image itself. You are kidding yourself in thinking that you didn't deserve this.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:34:31 PM · #74 |
I wonder how this all ties into Mistersixis god. Since his account just vanished and he was stealing other people's work. Was his account just a front so that he could pump up the votes of friends?
Has anyone pulled the IP addresses to see whether or not that is the case?
I think many people have been saying for a while now that cheating is taking place on this site. It looks like it is more previlant than any of us thought.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 08:35:26 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
I wonder how this all ties into Mistersixis god. Since his account just vanished and he was stealing other people's work. Was his account just a front so that he could pump up the votes of friends?
Has anyone pulled the IP addresses to see whether or not that is the case?
I think many people have been saying for a while now that cheating is taking place on this site. It looks like it is more previlant than any of us thought. |
great question!! now wondering myself.
|
|
