| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2009 07:17:23 AM · #1 |
Personally, I'm kind of floored that people think that SC could conceivably be this strange little band of men and women who seem to remain cloistered with the sole intent on keeping the general tone of conversation within a very narrow spectrum supposedly closely monitored and kept within some very narrow parameters.
What piqued my interest to start this thread, from the ban lifting thread:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
I was in no way able to state my case to anyone but SC, which, in my opinion, because some member(s) of SC had already wrongfully drawn the wrong conclusions about me, saw a chance to shut me up for good because of my views and expressions of things. I feel this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Had I been able to defend myself in a forum where other members would have had a chance to get involved beforehand, this ban may never have taken place. The reason I was given for being banned from this site was for having duplicate accounts. In no way was this true, as currently proven. I believe the ban came as a result of my political views and the fact that I called attention to another members̢۪ photo, who is a site favorite, and I think because I was questioning a possible dq for it was the main reason for my ban, because with minimal investigative work, it was too easily proven that the two accounts were in no way duplicates of one person. |
Seems like such a reach to me.
Discuss....
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 07:24:21 AM · #2 |
/*shrugs*/
Some people take this site, and themselves, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too seriously.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 07:41:41 AM · #3 |
I don't think that was the case at all. Kenskid has rubbed many people the wrong way for years. Goodness, I was gone for two years. came back about a week or two ago and immediately cringed at the sight of his screename all over again. I went to say something to my husband and as soon as I said kenskid. he was like "oh....I understand." So then when he posted a photo of rugmans it dragged rugman into it too. I sincerly believe that had the photo thread not been started that rugman would not have reached the level of villification that kenskid did. Rugman just got dragged along for the ride.
I'm not p.c. myself, and I have extreme views soemtimes just like kenskid(difference is he's very right wing, i'm very liberal.) I try to bite my toungue most of the time but sometimes I can't. I've never once been banned or warned or anything and I'm NOT a site favorite. I'm not friends or even close aqquaintances with any SC members. all this SC pet stuff is complete bull. Just rantings of insecure men trying to make themselves feel better. It's absurd. The SC aren't an order of high and mighty men and women trying to twist this site into what they perceive to be right. The SC are volunteers, they have lives and jobs, being SC isn't there life or job. They are just nice people helping out on this site who don't need to be attacked anymore than anyone else.
Geesh people, just try your best to be a nice, respectful person in the forums and don't take this stuff personally. really. These are strangers. they can no more make a real personal judgment about you than any other random person hundereds of miles away from you.
Message edited by author 2009-09-22 08:05:01. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 07:56:03 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:
... and I'm NOT a site favorite... |
yes you are ... you were definitely missed while on hiatus ... nice to have you back! |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:06:10 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:
... and I'm NOT a site favorite... |
yes you are ... you were definitely missed while on hiatus ... nice to have you back! |
You just killed my argument! j/k :P
Thanks for the welcome. :) |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:12:33 AM · #6 |
| I guess I did ... sorry! it's still nice to see you around here again ... as you can see, nothing much has changed in the 2 years you were gone!! |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:22:01 AM · #7 |
Had  Rugman1969 and  Kenskid not thrown  IreneM under the bus, they probably would have continued to fly under the radar and survive another week. But they peeved off the head of household,  scalvert, who has a secret alliance with IreneM, and he put them on the block.
Neither Rugman1969 nor Kenskid had a chance to win immunity, and in a surprise vote they were both evicted from the house. However, at DPC you should always expect the unexpected. In an incredible turn of events,  Langdon brought them back into the house!
scalvert is now forced to lay low, while he recovers from the embarrassing, premature eviction. In a bid for superiority, and a chance at the next Head of Household,  Frisca took on the task of announcing scalvert's blunder. Could there be a showmance going on between scalvert and Frisca? Perhaps we'll find out. On the next... DPChallenge!
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:31:19 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Had Rugman1969 and Kenskid not thrown IreneM under the bus, they probably would have continued to fly under the radar and survive another week. But they peeved off the head of household, scalvert, who has a secret alliance with IreneM, and he put them on the block.
Neither Rugman1969 nor Kenskid had a chance to win immunity, and in a surprise vote they were both evicted from the house. However, at DPC you should always expect the unexpected. In an incredible turn of events, Langdon brought them back into the house!
scalvert is now forced to lay low, while he recovers from the embarrassing, premature eviction. In a bid for superiority, and a chance at the next Head of Household, Frisca took on the task of announcing scalvert's blunder. Could there be a showmance going on between scalvert and Frisca? Perhaps we'll find out. On the next... DPChallenge!
|
The tribe has spoken!!! |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:33:06 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Had Rugman1969 and Kenskid not thrown IreneM under the bus, they probably would have continued to fly under the radar and survive another week. But they peeved off the head of household, scalvert, who has a secret alliance with IreneM, and he put them on the block.
Neither Rugman1969 nor Kenskid had a chance to win immunity, and in a surprise vote they were both evicted from the house. However, at DPC you should always expect the unexpected. In an incredible turn of events, Langdon brought them back into the house!
scalvert is now forced to lay low, while he recovers from the embarrassing, premature eviction. In a bid for superiority, and a chance at the next Head of Household, Frisca took on the task of announcing scalvert's blunder. Could there be a showmance going on between scalvert and Frisca? Perhaps we'll find out. On the next... DPChallenge!
|
Lawdy, Lawdy, Lawdy!!!
Thumps head against wall & lets out heavy sigh......
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:34:36 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Personally, I'm kind of floored that people think that SC could conceivably be this strange little band of men and women who seem to remain cloistered with the sole intent on keeping the general tone of conversation within a very narrow spectrum supposedly closely monitored and kept within some very narrow parameters.
What piqued my interest to start this thread, from the ban lifting thread:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
I was in no way able to state my case to anyone but SC, which, in my opinion, because some member(s) of SC had already wrongfully drawn the wrong conclusions about me, saw a chance to shut me up for good because of my views and expressions of things. I feel this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Had I been able to defend myself in a forum where other members would have had a chance to get involved beforehand, this ban may never have taken place. The reason I was given for being banned from this site was for having duplicate accounts. In no way was this true, as currently proven. I believe the ban came as a result of my political views and the fact that I called attention to another members̢۪ photo, who is a site favorite, and I think because I was questioning a possible dq for it was the main reason for my ban, because with minimal investigative work, it was too easily proven that the two accounts were in no way duplicates of one person. |
Seems like such a reach to me.
Discuss.... |
Well, SC certainly narrowed the range of "conversation" by locking the thread you mention after allowing rugman to post his lengthy vent which goes on to mention a wide spectrum of items that could be responded to. Oh well...I'll certainly keep it in mind for any future postings.
I do have to say that, overall, I think the SC does an outstanding job in helping DPCr's and keeping this place running somewhat smoothly. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:50:19 AM · #11 |
Im very rarely intrigued by what SC says/does, but more by what they don't say. Such as Ken and Rug both asked for explanations on the "friend voting" ruling, but that seemed to be passed over.
Also, it is an intriguing statement that someone made regarding how DPC encourages buddy voting by having things like Teams and Leagues. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:50:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
|
That thumb sucks !
;-)
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 08:57:05 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, SC certainly narrowed the range of "conversation" by locking the thread you mention after allowing rugman to post his lengthy vent which goes on to mention a wide spectrum of items that could be responded to. Oh well...I'll certainly keep it in mind for any future postings. |
I took this to mean, go ahead & discuss, but this thread's done:
Originally posted by frisca:
thanks for your thoughts, Rugman. I know you said a lot that maybe some people want to respond to, but I am going to close this thread and hope that the forums are civil, the debate lively and the people friendly from this point forward. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I do have to say that, overall, I think the SC does an outstanding job in helping DPCr's and keeping this place running somewhat smoothly. |
I wholeheartedly agree.
I also know for a fact from having been a list adminsistrator on another site for a while that some people just get comnspiracy theories stuck in their head, and I've never understood how they get roots and grow.
That's my question......what's the motivation for establishing site favorites or trying to sway the tone of conversation in the forums?
There's no fame & fortune, there's nothing whatsoever to be gained.
The way I see it, if there were site favorites, that would kind of fulfill a self-limiting prophecy and over time go the opposite way to driving people away in disgust.
Yet we still grow, right?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:28:37 AM · #14 |
I dragged Rugman into this??!! You may want to take another look around. I think you misses a lot of the posts and the time table of the posts.
I think you refer to a pic of rugs of space mountian. I put that up for some fun AFTER all the hoopla and before the banning.
IMO I don't think I dragged rug into this. Can anyone back me up on this?
Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:
I don't think that was the case at all. Kenskid has rubbed many people the wrong way for years. Goodness, I was gone for two years. came back about a week or two ago and immediately cringed at the sight of his screename all over again. I went to say something to my husband and as soon as I said kenskid. he was like "oh....I understand." So then when he posted a photo of rugmans it dragged rugman into it too. I sincerly believe that had the photo thread not been started that rugman would not have reached the level of villification that kenskid did. Rugman just got dragged along for the ride.
I'm not p.c. myself, and I have extreme views soemtimes just like kenskid(difference is he's very right wing, i'm very liberal.) I try to bite my toungue most of the time but sometimes I can't. I've never once been banned or warned or anything and I'm NOT a site favorite. I'm not friends or even close aqquaintances with any SC members. all this SC pet stuff is complete bull. Just rantings of insecure men trying to make themselves feel better. It's absurd. The SC aren't an order of high and mighty men and women trying to twist this site into what they perceive to be right. The SC are volunteers, they have lives and jobs, being SC isn't there life or job. They are just nice people helping out on this site who don't need to be attacked anymore than anyone else.
Geesh people, just try your best to be a nice, respectful person in the forums and don't take this stuff personally. really. These are strangers. they can no more make a real personal judgment about you than any other random person hundereds of miles away from you. |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:36:37 AM · #15 |
Yes, he was indeed in some deep water by calling out IreneM, but people get into arguments on this site all the time. It's the nature of the beast. but had you not aligned yourself with him by starting a new thread in his defense, questionging a very old photo out of the blue I don't think it would have led to the questions and subsequent banning.
JMHO. not stating it as fact. Just how I see it. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:40:10 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Im very rarely intrigued by what SC says/does, but more by what they don't say. Such as Ken and Rug both asked for explanations on the "friend voting" ruling, but that seemed to be passed over.
|
It was explained specifically (at least to rugman) privately. And while they may not have had access to the forums for a short time, they both had extensive dialogue with the SC through the ticketing system.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:42:43 AM · #17 |
| And in regards to encouraging it through leagues and teams? |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:44:17 AM · #18 |
The old photo was for laughs - which it got !
Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:
Yes, he was indeed in some deep water by calling out IreneM, but people get into arguments on this site all the time. It's the nature of the beast. but had you not aligned yourself with him by starting a new thread in his defense, questionging a very old photo out of the blue I don't think it would have led to the questions and subsequent banning.
JMHO. not stating it as fact. Just how I see it. |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:44:19 AM · #19 |
The old photo was for laughs - which it got !
Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:
Yes, he was indeed in some deep water by calling out IreneM, but people get into arguments on this site all the time. It's the nature of the beast. but had you not aligned yourself with him by starting a new thread in his defense, questionging a very old photo out of the blue I don't think it would have led to the questions and subsequent banning.
JMHO. not stating it as fact. Just how I see it. |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:46:39 AM · #20 |
this is my very subjective view - on dpc having an opinion against common opinion is like crime. For example i think that one of the welworshiped photog (won't name for the sake of avoiding argument) lacks creativity. Whenever i have expressed that view people seems to argue with me as if i committed a very large sin. People seems to take it too personally.
i do not think it is bad to have thinking which is different than others.
PS: i would never change myself. Specially when on my job related to research, i could come up with solutions to many difficult problems. some of them are either difficult to solve or were not solved (for few years). All because i think different than others. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:48:55 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
And in regards to encouraging it through leagues and teams? |
Buddy voting is NOT encouraged through leagues and teams. In fact, you couldn't vote on a teammate's entry at all in official DPC team events. There's nothing wrong with voting on a photo that you know or suspect belongs to a particular person as long as you do so on the merits of the image itself. It's only considered "buddy voting" if your history demonstrate an unmistakable pattern of voting a person's entries up (and/or everyone else's down) just because you know who entered it. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 09:54:15 AM · #22 |
So youre saying it can be done if you are smart about it? So I only vote every 3rd entry by a friend a high score, with the other 2 being better than average, but not stupid high.
It seems that its something that can easily be misinterpreted. It also seems to be something you have to dig to find and its not apparent on the surface.
Can one be accused of buddy voting on themselves, since you have the option to vote your own image, if you vote it a 10, would that be scandalous? |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 10:00:08 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
So youre saying it can be done if you are smart about it? So I only vote every 3rd entry by a friend a high score, with the other 2 being better than average, but not stupid high.
It seems that its something that can easily be misinterpreted. It also seems to be something you have to dig to find and its not apparent on the surface.
Can one be accused of buddy voting on themselves, since you have the option to vote your own image, if you vote it a 10, would that be scandalous? |
You can't vote on your own images. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 10:01:03 AM · #24 |
| Whoops. I thought you could. |
|
|
|
09/22/2009 10:04:55 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
It seems that its something that can easily be misinterpreted. It also seems to be something you have to dig to find and its not apparent on the surface. |
Biased voting is pretty easy to spot by its very nature. |
|
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: 08/27/2025 05:16:23 PM EDT.
