About SC Intervention...... - DPChallenge Forums

09/22/2009 04:00:46 PM · #101

One vote will not hurt a score.

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Haha. Yeah, theoretically, you shouldn't be able to vote on a challenge you entered at all!

Since I can't vote for myself, Ill do the next best thing...give everyone else in the challenge a 2-4, high enough not to be scrubbed, low enough to hurt thier score, and varied enough to not seem suspicious.

AJSullivan

09/22/2009 04:02:01 PM · #102

I guess its better than the one where you just bend over and take it. God forbid anyone have an opinion against the norm. I enjoy this board, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything that occurs on this site.

09/22/2009 04:05:48 PM · #103

I was answered behind the scenes. I will accept my punishment because I have stated my case and received an answer.

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.

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 04:11:25 PM · #104

Heh, shut it..

Message edited by author 2009-09-22 16:12:07.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/22/2009 04:37:14 PM · #105

Especially created in honor of this thread. :-)

09/22/2009 04:41:00 PM · #106

Yet not everything is as it seems. Seems like your one to condemn someone before knowing all the facts also. That will be your achilles heel sooner or later. Hope I'm here to see it.

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 membersâ�� 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....

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/22/2009 04:45:01 PM · #107

Originally posted by kenskid:

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.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

09/22/2009 04:46:00 PM · #108

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

I think the only way to make the voting 100% fair 100% of the time is to cram all the images entered into a Zip File and send them to NASA to be scored. If that doesn't work, Try this, You may only vote for challenges that you have not entered. I say this because the scores given by participants are always lower than the scores given by the nonparticipants.

My highest scoring image.....

Place: 2 out of 147
Avg (all users): 7.1984
Avg (commenters): 8.0667
Avg (participants): 7.2600
Avg (non-participants): 7.1579

Kinda shoots that theory, huh?

There have been threads and tangents on this in the past and the bottom line on that is that it's not worth th drop in voters to achieve a perceived score differential.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/22/2009 04:52:38 PM · #109

.

Message edited by author 2009-09-22 16:53:08.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/22/2009 05:02:27 PM · #110

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Yet not everything is as it seems. Seems like your one to condemn someone before knowing all the facts also. That will be your achilles heel sooner or later. Hope I'm here to see it.

Originally posted by rugman1969:

I believe the ban came as a result of my political views and the fact that I called attention to another membersâ�� 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

Yeah......

*NO* paranoia or overactive imagination here!

Gotcha!

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

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

09/22/2009 05:03:34 PM · #111

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Kinda shoots that theory, huh?

I don't think that's the norm, though. I looked at my Top 5 images and the non-participants gave a higher average score than those of the participants.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/22/2009 05:06:17 PM · #112

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Kinda shoots that theory, huh?

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

I don't think that's the norm, though. I looked at my Top 5 images and the non-participants gave a higher average score than those of the participants.

Absolutely NOT the norm, but an outstanding example of an exception, don'tcha think?

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/22/2009 05:11:52 PM · #113

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Kinda shoots that theory, huh?

I don't think that's the norm, though. I looked at my Top 5 images and the non-participants gave a higher average score than those of the participants.

I've observed this as well however you can't take that one stat and come to any real conclusions. It's equally plausible that non-participants simply don't value challenge relevancy as strongly as those who participated in the challenge. That has been my experience as both a participant and non-participant voter.

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/22/2009 05:12:50 PM · #114

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Yea, I can. I don't need to be dragged into anything. I fully jump in all by myself. No one dragged me in. How can you even say that? You don't know what even happened. I am the one that initially started it.

Originally posted by kenskid:
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.

Message edited by author 2009-09-22 17:22:42.

AJSullivan

09/22/2009 05:19:32 PM · #115

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Especially created in honor of this thread. :-)

Well thats a little rude.

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

09/22/2009 05:21:17 PM · #116

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I don't see how one can differentiate between an honest vote and a bunk vote, outside of someone doing something wehre they vote 5 across the board and and then a single 10 vote for thier "friend".

You'd be amazed at how many people are that stupid, but we do have other tools, too.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

09/22/2009 05:32:36 PM · #117

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Let's get it straight, I have been accused. No one can really 'prove' buddy voting unless they see a photog show you the picture they will enter in the challenge, and then see you vote a 10 on it. Other than physically seeing it done, it is all assumptions, no matter what tools are available. I have now been banned and called stupid by a SC member. If you have a problem with me, email me, call me, whatever. Leave it out of the forums.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I don't see how one can differentiate between an honest vote and a bunk vote, outside of someone doing something wehre they vote 5 across the board and and then a single 10 vote for thier "friend".

You'd be amazed at how many people are that stupid, but we do have other tools, too.

They said that some people really are stupid enough to vote every photo a 5, except for their friend, who they give a 10.
So unless you're one of those people, they really didn't call you stupid there.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/22/2009 05:44:25 PM · #118

I am actually getting tired of this now.

Rugman, accept the ban and move on - you are back on the site so try to enjoy it. Kenny is keeping a bit lower profile it seems. You have to bear in mind there are certain people who were `dancing on your grav`e so to speak who are now a bit pissed you are back on the site - they will try to antagonise you - be bigger than them and ignore them.

If you are actually interested in the whole photographic side of things still instead of just debating, then maybe start getting involved in some of those discussions. Remember you can still enter the side challenges whilst on your ban. You may encounter some hostility but generally most people here adopt a live and let live attitude. Someone I know personally made the mistake of buddy voting and ended up with a ban - he learnt from his mistakes and is now a very well respected and liked member of the site who actually wins a number of ribbons from time to time with his (or her) incredibly stylised photos.

You are very much like me - you have strong beliefs & right wing views, you are certainly not backwards in coming forwards to put your point across AND you always have to have the last word (just like me). The problem is there are a lot of people on here the same (maybe not quite so RW) and it just ends up in a hostile argument with lots of name calling etc.

I'm am by no means saying "BE thankful you are back, now STFU!", just saying it might be time to start talking photography and work on improving your technique.

kenskid

Nikon D700

09/22/2009 06:23:18 PM · #119

LOL...I now see what you mean. The Irene thread isn't what brought on the dual speculation but when I posted Rugs Disney shot - that got everyone thinking. Now that's funny. I really posted it to shift the fire from Irene to Rug...sort of like trying to slow down the DQ calls from me and Rug and put it to sleep.

I guess I can sort of see how me posting that pic may have been the fuse.

Oh well....hey SIMMS --- can I really join a side challenge? How does that work? Anybody?

KS

Originally posted by Jaded_Housewife:

You initially started kenskids thread asking about your photo? Really?....Because that's where this whole thing jumped the shark.
People would have gotten over you calling Irenem out. that wasn't where this all went bad. This went bad when people saw kenskids thread about your photo and thought... "hey, why does this guy have such a stake in what people think about someone elses photo?"...therein lies where the seed of "are they the same person or not" got planted.

ETA: for me at least. I didn't suspect anything during the irene thread. but as soon as I saw kenskid's thread about your shot I immediately looked at both profiles thinking something was amiss. and since I let it go and didn't pursue it I assume others wondered and DID pursue. Thus this whole fiasco.

Originally posted by rugman1969:
Yea, I can. I don't need to be dragged into anything. I fully jump in all by myself. No one dragged me in. How can you even say that? You don't know what even happened. I am the one that initially started it.

Originally posted by kenskid:
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.

AJSullivan

09/22/2009 06:25:25 PM · #120

The side challenges are more just photo posting threads with a theme, so I don't see why you couldn't take part in that.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

09/22/2009 06:40:23 PM · #121

Originally posted by kenskid:

Oh well....hey SIMMS --- can I really join a side challenge? How does that work? Anybody?

What he said really. Go to the Side Challenges forum, have a look and join in. No voting, no ribbons, just themed photography projects really.

zxaar

09/22/2009 06:41:49 PM · #122

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by AJSullivan:
You certainly are the most charming of the SC haha.

and I can cook, too! :-)

you too can find a good husband. :-D

ps: just joking.

Bugzeye

09/22/2009 06:55:49 PM · #123

What does the rest of your entries look like, In more cases then not, It is the other way around. Like it or Not!

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I think the only way to make the voting 100% fair 100% of the time is to cram all the images entered into a Zip File and send them to NASA to be scored. If that doesn't work, Try this, You may only vote for challenges that you have not entered. I say this because the scores given by participants are always lower than the scores given by the nonparticipants.

My highest scoring image.....

Place: 2 out of 147
Avg (all users): 7.1984
Avg (commenters): 8.0667
Avg (participants): 7.2600
Avg (non-participants): 7.1579

Kinda shoots that theory, huh?

There have been threads and tangents on this in the past and the bottom line on that is that it's not worth th drop in voters to achieve a perceived score differential.