|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2008 11:23:30 AM · #676 |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:40:00 AM · #677 |
You have chosen one line of what I wrote and are putting up photos according to that one line. I put up suggestions in the hopes that others will jump in and together, we can all work out something that is more concrete as opposed to subjective.
However, in your examples here, no, these wouldn't be dq'd because it is OBVIOUS that these are pieces of artwork and not live scenes.
Now, if you're trying to "downgrade" my attempts at getting a meaningful discussion going on how this rule can be better worded...well, then there's nothing that anyone is going to say that won't be refuted by SC, is there? Do you not want this fixed or at the least, improved?
I'm simply trying to get the ball rolling in terms of discussing possible solutions, rather than griping.
edited to correct grammar
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 11:42:44. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:46:55 AM · #678 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What would be the difficulty in saying if a DQ is not unanimous by the SC, that it goes up for a simple popular vote (i.e. just use a poll)? |
I'm all for popular voting, but whether it's done before voting ends or even more if it's done after.
Done after the voting period, there may be biased voting if they know who the photographer was
Done during voting period, if people think it may be in the top 10, it may push it morre in one direction.
I'd also go for Measurable-Words, like the subject should be at least 60/70% percent of the shot, if an artificial background is used. Artificial backgrounds, can be artwork or blurred muslin-type. That would unfortunately, eliminate real photographs of people standing in front of billboards.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:47:19 AM · #679 |
Ok, then edit that line to say....
3) Use of photos on monitors, television screens, or any other photo display methods for use as a full background without including a frame or something to indicate to the viewer that it is a photo/piece of artwork. It must be obvious to the viewer that it is a photo or piece of artwork in some way.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 11:51:57. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 11:55:51 AM · #680 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
You have chosen one line of what I have put in and are putting up photos according to that one line. I put up suggestions in the hopes that others will jump in and together, we can all work out something that is more concrete as opposed to subjective.
However, in your examples here, no, these wouldn't be dq'd because it is OBVIOUS that these are pieces of artwork and not live scenes.
Now, if you're trying to "downgrade" my attempts at getting a meaningful discussion going on how this rule can be better worded...well, then there's nothing that anyone is going to say that won't be refuted by SC, is there?
I'm simply trying to get the ball rolling in terms of discussing possible solutions, rather than griping. |
Welcome to my world, PhotoInterest. (And ya'll wonder why SC doesn't want to be involved in the discussion.)
This is the process of writing a rule.
You put something up for a suggestion. Then, you find examples of it to see if it still stands.
Yes, I chose ONE part of what you wrote. You want to know why?
Because IF that was the adoption we chose, in the next challenge, *something* like this would be entered, someone would request dq on that one line.
Because it was in the rule, we would probably have to dq it.
So, my question to you was is that what you intended? If not, then that is a weakness in the rule that would need to be addressed and possibly rewritten to be more clear.
Also, 1, 2, and 4 were pretty straight forward, I thought, with little or no subjectivity. This is the section I saw as being "subjective," which, to my understanding in parts of this thread is to be avoided.
I "questioned" it now, instead of waiting a few pages because I keep seeing people clamor for "sc involvement" and wanting our opinion. If I can see a problem immediately, you can sure as heck be guaranteed that someone else will find an even more unexpected way to "interpret" it and use it. Again, putting us back into the "subjective" seat.
And then there are those who are not native-American English speakers, but I won't even go there for now.
As far as "downgrading" your suggestion -- how in the heck is asking for clarification "downgrading?" I had a question. I posted some examples that, according to your rule, could possibly be questioned. I wanted to make sure that is what you intended.
+++++++++++
Folks, either you want SC involved in the discussion or you don't. If you do, then please don't jump down our throats when we ask for clarification. If you don't, then please stop complaining when we remain silent. We can't be freakin' both. Either we are involved, or we are not. If all you want is "good job, that'll work" then we really aren't involved. Our job is to not only make sure that it is clear, and concise, but also to look forward and try to figure out the million and one ways it could be interpreted, and clear them up BEFORE it is accepted. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:05:23 PM · #681 |
| Did I just hear a pin drop? :-) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:12:10 PM · #682 |
(Sigh) I'm going to stick my neck out here -
It looks as if  PhotoInterest is trying to find a way to rewrite the rules that are in effect so that more people can understand them. The words she put out appear to be first draft attempts to do that.
 Karmat (and others), I do think if everyone works together on this something can be accomplished out of this long debate.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:22:18 PM · #683 |
Folks, seriously, that is what I was doing.
She posted something; I had a question about it.
I would love to see something come out of it,
Continue on. Ya'll discuss.
Come up with a workable rule. Alert SC that you've done it and we will go from there.
You will have no more interference from me (but I do not speak for the rest of the council).
If I have further questions, I will wait it out and see if it is clarified on its own. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:37:42 PM · #684 |
A photo in the background is simply a background. Bits and pieces of photos appearing in the final photo are simply props.
To me the rule reads as follows:
...as long as the entry does not ... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to
1. circumvent date range
2. circumvent editing rules
3. fool the voters into thinking your submission is not simply a photo of a photo (when it is)
There seems to have been a lot more read into this rule that what is actually stated. In my interpretation, the criteria are not subjective.
My $0.02, and all I have to say on the subject. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 12:53:19 PM · #685 |
Originally posted by oscarthepig:
A photo in the background is simply a background. Bits and pieces of photos appearing in the final photo are simply props.
To me the rule reads as follows:
...as long as the entry does not ... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to
1. circumvent date range
2. circumvent editing rules
3. fool the voters into thinking your submission is not simply a photo of a photo (when it is)
There seems to have been a lot more read into this rule that what is actually stated. In my interpretation, the criteria are not subjective.
My $0.02, and all I have to say on the subject. |
I agree - This is the part I don't understand; there seem to be two debates going on here. One is relating to the 'circumvent editing rules' version of the text, the other is relating to 'fooling voters with artwork'
Are we talking about clarifying the existing rule regarding circumventing date/editing/photo-of-photo rule, or are we creating a new rule here about how much artwork is allowed to be present in a shot and how it should be identified in order to not fool voters? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:03:53 PM · #686 |
Perhaps we should work to clarify the "fool the voters" section of the rule by determining what the intent of that section was. Once we have worked that out then we can more clearly determine a way to write it down that is concise and understandable. It is afterall that section that has casued all the angst. And so the question on the table is, What is the intent of the fool the voters section of the rule?
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:17:01 PM · #687 |
Creating a set of "Rules Photos"
I think the first place to start with clarifying and/or creating Artwork rules is to create a pool of "Rules Photos", including notes of how they were taken. These photos which could number 10 or 20 should contain legal, illegal, and borderline shots for each category of artwork rule violation. They could be taken from challenges or someone could create them solely for this purpose.
With a set of "Rules Photos" in hand, we could then propose rules and look at how they would apply to all of the photos. This would allow us to test out the rules to find loopholes.
After the rules are finalized, the "Rules Photos" will be published as part of the rules and serve as examples of what is and what is not allowed. When someone is DQ'ed, the SC can say what the infraction is and state that infraction is similar to that shown in Rule Photo #7. When I take a photo that might be borderline, I can look though the rules and the "Rules Photos" and make an informed decision of whetehr I think it is legal or not.
Any volunteers to scan this thread and pull together some "Rules Photos" with notes on how they were taken. I do not think I understand the rules well enough to do it, but I am worried that creating rules without a set of photos to act as a control for testing them is not going to work very well.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 13:18:10. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:48:52 PM · #688 |
Ha! After we extracted a confession we disappeared him but good. ;-)
If we all agree that there's always going to be a "gray area" in some parts of the rules, where honest and well-meaning people can reasonably disagree about whether some particular image should or should not be DQ'd, I fail to see how putting it up to a popular vote (talk about the risk of "friend voting"!) is significantly better than what we have now. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:54:46 PM · #689 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
You have chosen one line of what I have put in and are putting up photos according to that one line. I put up suggestions in the hopes that others will jump in and together, we can all work out something that is more concrete as opposed to subjective.
However, in your examples here, no, these wouldn't be dq'd because it is OBVIOUS that these are pieces of artwork and not live scenes.
Now, if you're trying to "downgrade" my attempts at getting a meaningful discussion going on how this rule can be better worded...well, then there's nothing that anyone is going to say that won't be refuted by SC, is there?
I'm simply trying to get the ball rolling in terms of discussing possible solutions, rather than griping. |
Welcome to my world, PhotoInterest. (And ya'll wonder why SC doesn't want to be involved in the discussion.)
This is the process of writing a rule.
You put something up for a suggestion. Then, you find examples of it to see if it still stands.
Yes, I chose ONE part of what you wrote. You want to know why?
Because IF that was the adoption we chose, in the next challenge, *something* like this would be entered, someone would request dq on that one line.
Because it was in the rule, we would probably have to dq it.
So, my question to you was is that what you intended? If not, then that is a weakness in the rule that would need to be addressed and possibly rewritten to be more clear.
Also, 1, 2, and 4 were pretty straight forward, I thought, with little or no subjectivity. This is the section I saw as being "subjective," which, to my understanding in parts of this thread is to be avoided.
I "questioned" it now, instead of waiting a few pages because I keep seeing people clamor for "sc involvement" and wanting our opinion. If I can see a problem immediately, you can sure as heck be guaranteed that someone else will find an even more unexpected way to "interpret" it and use it. Again, putting us back into the "subjective" seat.
And then there are those who are not native-American English speakers, but I won't even go there for now.
As far as "downgrading" your suggestion -- how in the heck is asking for clarification "downgrading?" I had a question. I posted some examples that, according to your rule, could possibly be questioned. I wanted to make sure that is what you intended.
+++++++++++
Folks, either you want SC involved in the discussion or you don't. If you do, then please don't jump down our throats when we ask for clarification. If you don't, then please stop complaining when we remain silent. We can't be freakin' both. Either we are involved, or we are not. If all you want is "good job, that'll work" then we really aren't involved. Our job is to not only make sure that it is clear, and concise, but also to look forward and try to figure out the million and one ways it could be interpreted, and clear them up BEFORE it is accepted. |
Karmat....the way that your question was phrased, complete with photos attached, it sounded (to me) as though it was a "trick question", meant to get me to give an answer that could be prounced upon. :)) I think, from what I'm reading, a couple of others felt the same way.
Honestly, all that I was trying to do was to get the ball rolling in some constructive fashion as to a possible way of re-working/re-wording the rule as it stands now to clarify it so that no further discussions like this one have to ensue...at least to this extent and with this type of emotion on it.
You have to understand that a lot of us are also going to be a bit leary with this because members of SC have been somewhat "defensive" in their responses to this particular DQ and the rule and situation. Everyone who has participated in this thread, has a point of view as well as a vested interest as part of the membership/SC so, now that the "heat" is dying down and the topic has been released more or less of emotional charge, I figured it was time to sit down, together with everyone who wants to be involved and figure out a way to improve things. It's not an assault on SC in any way by members trying to work out how it can be worded so that few future eruptions like this happen. It's not a guarantee as nothing in this world is "fool proof", is it? However, a rule that is worked out amongst a lot of people both, as members who are affected and as SC members, is likely one that will best accepted. The more angles there are to see something from and the more eyes and ears that see it and hear it, the better chances there are of creating something that is well tolerated by more people than not. SC's defenses are naturally going to be there because it's not an easy task. So, why not let everyone play a role in it in some way or another without taking offense to it or becoming defensive over it? It affects ALL of us, afterall.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:04:10 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Ha! After we extracted a confession we disappeared him but good. ;-)
If we all agree that there's always going to be a "gray area" in some parts of the rules, where honest and well-meaning people can reasonably disagree about whether some particular image should or should not be DQ'd, I fail to see how putting it up to a popular vote (talk about the risk of "friend voting"!) is significantly better than what we have now. |
Ok, so let me just see if I'm getting what you're trying to say here correctly. :)
Are you saying then that you (or SC as a whole) is really not interested in considering changing this rule at all? You like it the way that it is and feel that it's impossible to do anything differently?
Sorry, if I am misinterpretting this and I hope that you'll expand upon your meaning with this message but, when I couple it with Karmat's answer as well as Shannon's and a few of L2's comments during this debate, I'm picking up the "vibe" that perhaps, SC as a whole is not exactly thrilled or wanting anyone to mess with the rule and would prefer that the current version stay as is. I'm also sensing the meaning/"vibe" behind the responses that we are getting from SC that it's kind of a..."Ok, let them play around with it but, we're really not interested in changing it" type of thing. Am I wrong? Please clarify because if I'm wrong, I'd like to help in whatever ways that I can. If I'm right...well, then I have a job that I'm pushing aside where I can and a life and there's no use in wasting time on this. :) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:17:00 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Sorry, if I am misinterpretting this and I hope that you'll expand upon your meaning with this message but, when I couple it with Karmat's answer as well as Shannon's and a few of L2's comments during this debate, I'm picking up the "vibe" that perhaps, SC as a whole is not exactly thrilled or wanting anyone to mess with the rule and would prefer that the current version stay as is. I'm also sensing the meaning/"vibe" behind the responses that we are getting from SC that it's kind of a..."Ok, let them play around with it but, we're really not interested in changing it" type of thing. Am I wrong? Please clarify because if I'm wrong, I'd like to help in whatever ways that I can. If I'm right...well, then I have a job that I'm pushing aside where I can and a life and there's no use in wasting time on this. :) |
Here's my take. The original post consisted of  alanfreed explaining how SC currently interpret the artwork rule. I didn't see any call for members to debate, clarify, or re-write the rule.
The SC interpretation of the rule appears to differ from its original wording, so there is a requirement for SC to re-write it to minimise any future manatee DQ dilemmas. Posting a clarification to the forum is insufficient, it needs to be written into the official rules. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:18:00 PM · #692 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Ok, so let me just see if I'm getting what you're trying to say here correctly. :)
Are you saying then that you (or SC as a whole) is really not interested in considering changing this rule at all? You like it the way that it is and feel that it's impossible to do anything differently? |
Not impossible, but far more difficult than "someone should write a better rule" makes it seem, and that I don't think it's nearly so big a problem as it seems. When were you yourself aware that there was a "major problem with the artwork rule" before the discussion of one image DQ'd on a split decision?
I think we have more important things to do -- though we are, in fact, "discussing" this and other rules issues. Remember, we don't ever get to "meet and discuss" anything -- we all have home and work obligations, and log in and "discuss" when we get a chance. But just because it's a slow process it doesn't mean things don't get done. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:19:29 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by JH:
The SC interpretation of the rule appears to differ from its original wording .... |
How? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:14:10 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Ok, so let me just see if I'm getting what you're trying to say here correctly. :)
Are you saying then that you (or SC as a whole) is really not interested in considering changing this rule at all? You like it the way that it is and feel that it's impossible to do anything differently? |
Not impossible, but far more difficult than "someone should write a better rule" makes it seem, and that I don't think it's nearly so big a problem as it seems. When were you yourself aware that there was a "major problem with the artwork rule" before the discussion of one image DQ'd on a split decision?
I think we have more important things to do -- though we are, in fact, "discussing" this and other rules issues. Remember, we don't ever get to "meet and discuss" anything -- we all have home and work obligations, and log in and "discuss" when we get a chance. But just because it's a slow process it doesn't mean things don't get done. |
To answer your question, I had no need to even look at the rule until a recent entry as artwork/photos were not a part of many of my photos so, it wasn't one of the rules that I needed to concern myself with up until now. However, my first experience with it has been one of a great deal of difficulty in interpretting it. More than anything....as shown by a great many other members as well, it is also the case between members of SC. Even members of SC can't seem to agree as to what is acceptable and what is DQ'able...thus, it resulted in, as you've stated, a "split decision" and a whole debate on this thread by everyone. Quite obviously, as stated by SC members in this thread, it is quite a subjective rule and an issue that has proven to be one of a nature that is going to cause a great deal of hassle for interpretation and therefore, needs some working out.
And, ok I see the problems associated with SC and time and work and lives. None of us figure that this is your full time work and that you don't have lives. I'm sure that we all understand that point very well as we all have the same and can relate. It's not at all an easy job to have but, it's been taken on by all of you voluntarily and this is NO SMALL SITE! There are a lot of members and we are all under "the rule" of SC in our entries and participation. There's no downplaying your personal responsibilities and lives in any way.
HOWEVER, this is where I'm having a problem. It seems that there's quite an outcry for change in this one particular rule. There are those of us in here, with jobs and lives too, who are trying to help with this. What I'm STILL hearing is that you have no real want or intentions of even letting us, try to change or better that rule. Instead, I'm hearing DEFENSE, OFFENSE, DEFENSE coming from SC members. There are a few in this thread who feel that they have sufficient knowledge to understand completely those rules but, there are more who feel as I do that it still needs some clarification lest effort and energy go out a window in a DQ from a subjective portion of that rule. SC, as participants know full well that in putting a photo into a challenge themselves, some will take a great deal of time, energy, thought and therefore, emotion into an entry while others will simply enter what they can, when they can and only if they happen to capture a shot that is fitting a challenge or can be shoehorned in. No matter what, there are members who will become tremedously upset at having a shot DQ'd by a split decision over a rule that is ambigous or subjective to SC's interpretations of it...especially, when a fairly big effort and time have been put into a shot to enter into DPC challenges.
BUT...you have said something that tells a whole tale in and of itself and needs no further explanation!
"I THINK WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO...."
Lovely.
Why I should waste anymore of my precious little time in here, trying to help to improve anything is beyond me. Why even bother wasting anymore time in submitting photos in here is beyond me now too, hearing this type of an answer from a Site Council member who has shown that our concerns are not important.
I wonder if other SC members feel the same? I'm sure that they will back up your response with more DEFENSES. What is THAT saying?! |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:16:05 PM · #695 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
The SC interpretation of the rule appears to differ from its original wording .... |
How? |
See pages 1-14 of this thread. LOL!
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:18:24 PM · #696 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why I should waste anymore of my precious little time in here, trying to help to improve anything is beyond me. |
I have to ask myself the same question ... :-( |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:19:25 PM · #697 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Why I should waste anymore of my precious little time in here, trying to help to improve anything is beyond me. |
I have to ask myself the same question ... :-( |
Because, not only have I put time and energy and effort into this particular topic, but I've put time and energy and effort into my shots in this site AND PAID TO BE HERE!
ETA: You are completely and totally offensive and I take offense to your attitude. You are certainly showing who you are not only as a person but, also as a so called "leader" in this site.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 16:21:23. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:40:41 PM · #698 |
I don't regard  GeneralE as the SC villain here (another SC member has that role nailed perfectly :-). I took GeneralE 's comment to be expressing the same sort of frustration with this situation as the rest of us.
Attempting to write anything for a group's consumption and agreement is difficult enough, but attempting to write something as a group is an exercise in frustration--endless patience and openness to critique and questions and suggestions and so on and on and on.... is required. And that is if everyone is face to face in the same room. In a forum such as this, well, a few factors of ten are to be applied to both the difficulty and the necessary patience.
I, myself, over-reacted to a comment by GeneralE last night--but I went back and pulled a "nevermind" overwrite of it. Tensions are high in this thread, in lives in general I suspect (this time of year is extra-demanding both at work and at home).
My apologies to anyone whom I offended at any point in this thread, and I reset-to-zero any offense I have taken here, as well.
Cheers & Peace.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 16:42:20. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:47:52 PM · #699 |
I "got" his point about the "ease" at which to re-write a rule. That was never misunderstood. What I DO take offense to is his comment above that one, where he "wonders" why I'm here, trying!
I'm sure that you notice, that I started off today, trying hard to find a way to work with everyone to help SC re-write the rule so that it's not as ambigious/open to interpretation as so many others want to see done. I did as you have done this morning. :)
There's only so much "understanding" that one can have when a comment like that gets made from one of the alleged "leaders" of a site, isn't there? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 04:50:34 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What I DO take offense to is his comment above that one, where he "wonders" why I'm here, trying!
I'm sure that you notice, that I started off today, trying hard to find a way to work with everyone to help SC re-write the rule so that it's not as ambigious/open to interpretation as so many others want to see done. |
He was wondering why HE was wasting his time, not you, which makes your next sentence all the more ironic. :-/ |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:03:17 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:03:17 PM EDT.
|
