Allow the burning of backgrounds in Advanced

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/11/2007 10:59:56 PM · #76

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I've just pointed out that no one seems bothered by a classic scenario of conflicting interests.

Conflict? You think they spent days deliberating on who to DQ to put them in better finishing positions? Did they just pick on JJ because he has ribbons? Why would they choose to DQ anyone if it wasn't to their own benefit??? You don't get how this site works, dude.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

06/11/2007 11:01:06 PM · #77

Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/11/2007 11:03:33 PM · #78

That's fine. You are free to your opinions.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

06/11/2007 11:04:11 PM · #79

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest.

Fine, open your wallet and pay for a panel to adjudicate the contests. I for one deeply resent the implied accusation of bias, and would be glad to relinquish the workload. Let me know when you've hired my replacement.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/11/2007 11:06:36 PM · #80

Web site suggestion thread about burning backgrounds.... let's stay on topic, shall we. ;)

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

06/11/2007 11:07:39 PM · #81

I fail to see how barring SC from participating in the same challenges they are arbitrators of implies that they should then be paid for doing so. If anything it would give weight to the image of selflessness that they so often project...

Again, for the challenged, pointing out a conflict of interest is not an accusation of wrong doing.

06/11/2007 11:10:04 PM · #82

Originally posted by routerguy666:

...the part about people who have the power to DQ images being allowed to particpate in challenges?

That part! You are basically suggesting that the entire SC would risk discrediting the whole site by conspiring to influence the result of a contest with no prizes. Have you completely lost your mind? We'd get canned immediately and probably banned for life if we abused our priveleges. I doubt very seriously that ALL of us have ever entered the same challenge at once, and those who didn't would certainly cry foul if there was any hint of a problem. No volunteer with ever put up with as much crap as we do if we weren't completely devoted to the interests of this site, and I find your insinuation personally insulting. >:-(

P.S. Woe unto GeneralE if his entries have been benefiting from his position all this time.

06/11/2007 11:10:39 PM · #83

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Well they are arbitrators in EVERY challenge.... they require majority voting on EVERY DQ issue. So you're saying they should stay for years on end volunteering many hours a day for free and not be allowed to participate?

Anyway... the topic?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/11/2007 11:11:22 PM · #84

For the record, I started this thread before there was any DQ. The DQ is just what made people notice it.

chimericvisions

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

06/11/2007 11:13:23 PM · #85

Originally posted by routerguy666:

What I fail to see is the conflict of interests.

They're not judging the challenges, which would be a conflict of interests. The judging is performed by the few hundred people who vote on each challenge.

The SC has no power over challenges except to validate that the rules were adhered to. Even the members of the SC have to answer to that, as seen in _incredibly_ trivial cases, as seen in

scalvert's Minimalism II entry.

If they will DQ themselves over something as harmless and inconsequential as resizing the image twice, I don't see how this (which is a clear rules violation) is a conflict of interests.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/11/2007 11:14:48 PM · #86

Originally posted by routerguy666:

What a load of crap. You should really enter politics. You raise the issue of a "conflict of interest" but if you really believe there is no wrongdoing, then what's your issue with the status quo? Nay, you are implying that there is bias, but you are hiding behind weasel words.
Just where do you think you'll find people that will spend many hours per week laboring to fairly adjudicate the contests, and yet be locked out of participation? Answer: you'll have to compensate them somehow, or they will laugh in your face.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/11/2007 11:16:36 PM · #87

curious but if an sc's entry was asked for validation, will that sc get a say/vote in the council deciding on that entry?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

06/11/2007 11:17:38 PM · #88

Originally posted by scalvert:

P.S. Woe unto GeneralE if his entries have been benefiting from his position all this time.

You never know, maybe my Brown Ribbon collection should really be twice as big....

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/11/2007 11:18:10 PM · #89

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest.

If you truly believe this, then you would essentially have a problem with a traffic court judge driving on the same roads as you do, lest they be called upon to render a decision on those that transgress the rules of the roads they drive on.

The only conflict of interest that could occur in this instance would be if an SC member rendered a decision on a transgression he or she committed, and such is not the case here.

Ray

fotomann_forever

06/11/2007 11:18:30 PM · #90

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Even the members of the SC have to answer to that, as seen in _incredibly_ trivial cases, as seen in scalvert's Minimalism II entry.

I love it, I love it :-)

06/11/2007 11:18:48 PM · #91

Originally posted by crayon:

curious but if an sc's entry was asked for validation, will that sc get a say/vote in the council deciding on that entry?

No. We abstain from voting on our own entries (although I did push the DQ button on myself once the votes were cast). :-/

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

06/11/2007 11:19:03 PM · #92

Summary: JJ broke established rules and was DQ'd soooooooooooo Site Council should be disbanned for conflict of interest. Nice spin.

I've had a DQ, it sucks. I didn't mean to break rules either, but I did. Site Council sees so many DQs they could give a rats ass about mine. I'm sure not one of them could name it. Its just part of the job.

Lots have been DQ'd for the same reason as JJs. SC was fair about all of those!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/11/2007 11:19:56 PM · #93

Originally posted by crayon:

curious but if an sc's entry was asked for validation, will that sc get a say/vote in the council deciding on that entry?

In theory yes, but the last two times my photos have been validated (in the past couple of months) I don't even read the SC discussion thread about the image. I still have no idea whether my photos were validated unanimously or by a margin of one vote.

Canon EOS-20D

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

06/11/2007 11:21:51 PM · #94

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by crayon:
curious but if an sc's entry was asked for validation, will that sc get a say/vote in the council deciding on that entry?

In theory yes, ...

No. That's never been the case. They are privy to the conversation but not allowed to participate and must recuse themselves from voting.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

06/11/2007 11:23:07 PM · #95

Oh, I don't remember reading that rule then, but I do it anyway.

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/11/2007 11:23:34 PM · #96

Originally posted by routerguy666:

isn't it then a conflict of interest to vote on a challenge that you entered? have you ever done this? with your very low vote cast i would say that you were in effect making your placing higher with every single vote and you would know it.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

06/11/2007 11:24:54 PM · #97

Originally posted by mk:

They are privy to the conversation but not allowed to participate and must recuse themselves from voting.

It's sort of like an owner watching his horse in a race: very interested in the outcome, but basically powerless to do anything about it.

digitalknight

06/11/2007 11:24:57 PM · #98

I think we just want to burn our backgrounds in the time honored photographic tradition.

what are you people talking about?