| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2009 04:38:04 PM · #76 |
Judi - it doesn't seem like it was the actual breaking of the challenge description, but the attitude regarding doing it. His opening sentence in the description was too nonchalant and a essentially a "fooled you suckers"
I think thats what people are cranky about, not that it wasn't near his house, but that there was no shame in completely, what people have summed up to be, cheating, and moreso in lording it over people. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 04:45:32 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I find it interesting the different remarks that have come in over the last half hour. Some with humour....(I needed a good laugh) and others...well...your knickers are in such a twist that your voices have risen incredibly high. Can you all honestly tell me that you have abided by every minute rule/guideline in every challenge/competition you have ever entered? Nobody is an angel in this world. Now before you all get even higher voices...I am not abiding cheating....but this challenge was bound to get some people bending the rules....!!! I am sure that Nuzzer and I are definitely not the only ones, in fact I would even be bold enough to say that some of the commenters in this thread or on Nuzzers image that complained about the rule breaking, were probably rule breakers in this challenge also.
Does that make me a troublemaker???? Maybe!
But let's just say I am playing devils advocate here.
Sometimes people can't look in the mirror for fear of seeing their own guilt, so they make themselves feel better by throwing the flack at others!!! |
As Bear_Music pointed out, there's a huge difference between say, going DNMC with a photo of a cat in a dog challenge (which is immediately recognizable as DNMC and isn't an indication of deceit, but usually mere laziness), and something like this where there was a conscious, bold effort to just completely circumnavigate the challenge itself. YOUR case, if true, in that you used someone else's home because you weren't at your own is almost 100% not even CLOSE to being the same thing. In any way.
Now, having said that, I can 100% guarantee that I've never purposely tried to get around challenge descriptions in the manner that was shown here. I've not had a gigantic amount of entries, but it's not even a thought that would occur to me. I believe in the idea of being challenged and sticking to the spirit of being challenged. I believe strongly that if there's a very spelled out and specific description for a challenge, then by god you should damn well follow it, because after all, it would just be Digital Photography Free Studies, wouldn't it?
Sure, there may be some people hiding behind mock outrage to mask their own incongruities, but I doubt it's on a scale like you're suggesting. There's some genuine outrage/disappointment/frustration here, and I believe people have a right TO it.
Nuzzer may be the scapegoat for it this time around, but it doesn't make it any less necessary. If we as a community just passively let it go on, it'll just grow. Hell, it'll probably just grow regardless, but we at least need to make an effort. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 04:49:52 PM · #78 |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 04:50:56 PM · #79 |
It was cheating. Plain and simple. Most of the time, when people enter something like a tree in a self portrait challenge, they have some reason, (warped, of course) of why they're like a tree, and they're trying to think out of the box, while following the spirit of the challenge. Plus, how often does a picture of a tree do well in a self portrait challenge? The problem is that he took a coveted place from people who really tried to follow the challenge. I guess cheaters do prosper.
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 16:51:49. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 04:53:15 PM · #80 |
| One of the things that irritates me is that with editing, you're not allowed to add/change things that would alter the viewer's perspective of the picture. With this, finding out that he was not 47 steps from his door does alter my perspective and I would have voted accordingly. Oh well, I'm going to forget about it as soon as I close this thread and move on. Nothing else I can do about it now. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 04:59:37 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I find it interesting the different remarks that have come in over the last half hour. Some with humour....(I needed a good laugh) and others...well...your knickers are in such a twist that your voices have risen incredibly high. Can you all honestly tell me that you have abided by every minute rule/guideline in every challenge/competition you have ever entered? Nobody is an angel in this world. Now before you all get even higher voices...I am not abiding cheating....but this challenge was bound to get some people bending the rules....!!! I am sure that Nuzzer and I are definitely not the only ones, in fact I would even be bold enough to say that some of the commenters in this thread or on Nuzzers image that complained about the rule breaking, were probably rule breakers in this challenge also.
Does that make me a troublemaker???? Maybe!
But let's just say I am playing devils advocate here.
Sometimes people can't look in the mirror for fear of seeing their own guilt, so they make themselves feel better by throwing the flack at others!!! |
As Bear_Music pointed out, there's a huge difference between say, going DNMC with a photo of a cat in a dog challenge (which is immediately recognizable as DNMC and isn't an indication of deceit, but usually mere laziness), and something like this where there was a conscious, bold effort to just completely circumnavigate the challenge itself. YOUR case, if true, in that you used someone else's home because you weren't at your own is almost 100% not even CLOSE to being the same thing. In any way.
Now, having said that, I can 100% guarantee that I've never purposely tried to get around challenge descriptions in the manner that was shown here. I've not had a gigantic amount of entries, but it's not even a thought that would occur to me. I believe in the idea of being challenged and sticking to the spirit of being challenged. I believe strongly that if there's a very spelled out and specific description for a challenge, then by god you should damn well follow it, because after all, it would just be Digital Photography Free Studies, wouldn't it?
Sure, there may be some people hiding behind mock outrage to mask their own incongruities, but I doubt it's on a scale like you're suggesting. There's some genuine outrage/disappointment/frustration here, and I believe people have a right TO it.
Nuzzer may be the scapegoat for it this time around, but it doesn't make it any less necessary. If we as a community just passively let it go on, it'll just grow. Hell, it'll probably just grow regardless, but we at least need to make an effort. |
That is true...but where does the line finish. For example, a boy breaks the rules in the playground....he needs to be taught a lesson,and told how bad he is, by everyone...but do you just keep letting everyone punish the boy for as long as they like? When does it stop? What needs to be done to satisfy you to know that he has learnt his lesson and won't do it again?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:09:06 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...I find it interesting the different remarks that have come in over the last half hour. Some with humour....(I needed a good laugh) and others...well...your knickers are in such a twist that your voices have risen incredibly high. Can you all honestly tell me that you have abided by every minute rule/guideline in every challenge/competition you have ever entered? Nobody is an angel in this world. Now before you all get even higher voices...I am not abiding cheating....but this challenge was bound to get some people bending the rules....!!! I am sure that Nuzzer and I are definitely not the only ones, in fact I would even be bold enough to say that some of the commenters in this thread or on Nuzzers image that complained about the rule breaking, were probably rule breakers in this challenge also.
Does that make me a troublemaker???? Maybe!
But let's just say I am playing devils advocate here.
Sometimes people can't look in the mirror for fear of seeing their own guilt, so they make themselves feel better by throwing the flack at others!!! |
As Bear_Music pointed out, there's a huge difference between say, going DNMC with a photo of a cat in a dog challenge (which is immediately recognizable as DNMC and isn't an indication of deceit, but usually mere laziness), and something like this where there was a conscious, bold effort to just completely circumnavigate the challenge itself. YOUR case, if true, in that you used someone else's home because you weren't at your own is almost 100% not even CLOSE to being the same thing. In any way.
Now, having said that, I can 100% guarantee that I've never purposely tried to get around challenge descriptions in the manner that was shown here. I've not had a gigantic amount of entries, but it's not even a thought that would occur to me. I believe in the idea of being challenged and sticking to the spirit of being challenged. I believe strongly that if there's a very spelled out and specific description for a challenge, then by god you should damn well follow it, because after all, it would just be Digital Photography Free Studies, wouldn't it?
Sure, there may be some people hiding behind mock outrage to mask their own incongruities, but I doubt it's on a scale like you're suggesting. There's some genuine outrage/disappointment/frustration here, and I believe people have a right TO it.
Nuzzer may be the scapegoat for it this time around, but it doesn't make it any less necessary. If we as a community just passively let it go on, it'll just grow. Hell, it'll probably just grow regardless, but we at least need to make an effort. |
That is true...but where does the line finish. For example, a boy breaks the rules in the playground....he needs to be taught a lesson,and told how bad he is, by everyone...but do you just keep letting everyone punish the boy for as long as they like? When does it stop? What needs to be done to satisfy you to know that he has learnt his lesson and won't do it again? |
Well, an honest apology and a modicum of remorse from the culprit would probably go a long way into beginning the end of the backlash, don't you think? That's where it usually ends with your playground example. You give punishment, the child says sorry, and then you have to trust him to learn the lesson. So far with Nuzzer, all we've had is silence and a small update on his comments to say "I broke no rules on DPC with this submission", which of course is his way of saying "I feel perfectly good about this".
I'm sure most people will leave it at just the comment they leave on his photo or a post or two in this thread. I, of course, have some spare time on my hands so I continue to address replies and other concerns, but I'll probably shut up here too, shortly.
If I see some form of apology or retraction from Nuzzer, then I can gladly never speak of the matter again. If he truly feels that he's done nothing wrong, and just takes it all as is, and has no problem with it, then that's his choice, but all respect on my part is utterly lost, and he opens himself to continued criticism, IMO. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:09:07 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Judi:
That is true...but where does the line finish. For example, a boy breaks the rules in the playground....he needs to be taught a lesson,and told how bad he is, by everyone...but do you just keep letting everyone punish the boy for as long as they like? When does it stop? What needs to be done to satisfy you to know that he has learnt his lesson and won't do it again? |
An apology would be a damned good start. A request to withdraw/self-DQ the entry might show he was sincere about it.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:19:15 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Judi:
That is true...but where does the line finish. For example, a boy breaks the rules in the playground....he needs to be taught a lesson,and told how bad he is, by everyone...but do you just keep letting everyone punish the boy for as long as they like? When does it stop? What needs to be done to satisfy you to know that he has learnt his lesson and won't do it again? |
An apology would be a damned good start. A request to withdraw/self-DQ the entry might show he was sincere about it. |
When someone openly thumbs their nose at the community, I don't think that type of person would be that standupish to self DQ or apologize.
Matt |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:21:08 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Judi:
That is true...but where does the line finish. For example, a boy breaks the rules in the playground....he needs to be taught a lesson,and told how bad he is, by everyone...but do you just keep letting everyone punish the boy for as long as they like? When does it stop? What needs to be done to satisfy you to know that he has learnt his lesson and won't do it again? |
"As long as you like"? It hasn't even been 12 hours yet. What needs to be done to "satisfy" me? An apology would go a long way; but we haven't heard from Nuzzer yet. As I pointed out in the beginning, "Now, I haven't checked to see how many, if any, other entries are equally flagrant, but this attitude sort of ticks me off big-time."
It's not so much that he didn't heed the challenge limitations, giving him a leg up on those who did; it's the comment he made on his own picture, plus the fact that he actually had the cojones to criticize those who "assume" the image is DNMC in the scoring thread. That's a lot of cheese, and it just smells bad.
And as K10Dguy points out, these may seem petty to some of y'all, but to some of us it's *important* that a stink gets raised when stuff like this happens, or it will slowly become the de facto norm. I'm not sure why some folks are acting as if we *shouldn't* be complaining.
R.
ETA: I see three good folks beat me to it while I was typing the above; so there's your answer, from four of us...
Message edited by author 2009-11-16 17:22:36. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:28:09 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Melethia:
For those of you leaving comments on the photograph, please go re-read what you wrote and consider whether it is really necessary or even "helpful". I am not defending the action of the photographer but requesting a modicum of maturity and civility on the part of all. Thanks. |
This website already suffers a little too much from a 'helpful' mentality above all costs, and various little love-ins that coddle people too much. Things like this need a little bad vibe, it's imperative IMO. Even if it's just to say "no, we're not going to sit back and smile and be pansies".
It's great to focus some attention on the good work done elsewhere in the challenge AS WELL, but not instead of. |
Dead on!
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:32:37 PM · #87 |
This is the comment I left on the pic for him:
This just cheapens DPC and encourages others to cheat. It is a real bad message for new comers. I have to say that if most people on this forum had the chance to shoot that same scene they would do it as well, or much better. So, what have you proven? The setting is spectacular, but I honestly do not see that you have done anything more than capture it as a snap shot and gotten to the front page by cheating.
The editing is actual quite poor with a sloppy selection between land and sea. I encourage others to look closer.
I challenge you to have some balls and DQ yourself. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:38:41 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Melethia:
For those of you leaving comments on the photograph, please go re-read what you wrote and consider whether it is really necessary or even "helpful". I am not defending the action of the photographer but requesting a modicum of maturity and civility on the part of all. Thanks. |
This website already suffers a little too much from a 'helpful' mentality above all costs, and various little love-ins that coddle people too much. Things like this need a little bad vibe, it's imperative IMO. Even if it's just to say "no, we're not going to sit back and smile and be pansies".
It's great to focus some attention on the good work done elsewhere in the challenge AS WELL, but not instead of. |
Dead on! |
Note that I was merely requesting civility. I don't believe that pointless rude or name-calling remarks serve any purpose, nor I am not in favor of love-ins or coddling; I do like pansies - they make for a nice bedding plant and bloom repeatedly. They also do well in full shade and under trees. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:39:33 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And as K10Dguy points out, these may seem petty to some of y'all, but to some of us it's *important* that a stink gets raised when stuff like this happens, or it will slowly become the de facto norm. |
Call me a pessimist but I think that is already the norm.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:39:41 PM · #90 |
He turned me into a newt!
Sorry, watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail the other night. The witch hunt reference seemed appropiate.
Nuzzer is a long standing member and really good friend to a lot of us here.
I don't like what I'm reading regarding his character in this thread. You are all missing "tongue in cheek" element in his comment section.
If you are demanding an apology and a self DQ from him, you should also demand from anyone else that did that same thing. Or is it what he did coupled with the high score/HM that rankles everyone the most?
Becuase I don't see the pitch forks and torches aimed at Judi who admitted doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:39:52 PM · #91 |
| Haha, man I'm seeing names in this thread that I've rarely seen post before. That does say a lot about the feelings of this mob. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:42:08 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Becuase I don't see the pitch forks and torches aimed at Judi who admitted doing the same thing. |
It was determined that Judi was staying at her fathers house, and that was indeed out the door.
I think if any others were brought to attention for the same offense, the same request would be made. I don't sense any tongue in cheekiness about it though. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:46:58 PM · #93 |
| I can't believe what people are allowed to get away with around here. And I don't mean Nuzzer. Some people should probably be embarrassed. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:47:20 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Nuzzer is a long standing member |
Than he should have known better and put the pic in a free study.
And yes I have no respect for anyone who does this. I hated the guy in the 2s challenge. It even lead to special challenges where disrespecting the challenge subject like 5s would end in DQ.
Maybe the next challenge like this should have the wording: "If you don't respect the spirit of this challenge, be ready for an angry mob with pitchforks"
If you can't deal with reactions like this, than don't disrespect the spirit of this site and its challenges.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:48:54 PM · #95 |
I'm trying to understand the "logic" of karmat, who apparently speaks for the powers that be. Since there is no technical violation of the rules, this person cannot be disqualified. It doesn't matter that the most basic rule of all is violated; that is, that the photographer didn't meet the challenge and in fact flagrantly flouted the challenge. In effect, he gave a huge middle finger to the entire dp community. But according to karmat, this is just fine, because he will learn a life lesson. Please.
In the future, I would suggest that new challenges have no criteria, since that is what the grand council is encouraging. One of the reasons I stopped submitting photos to this site is that the GC revels in minutiae but consistently misses the big picture.
The anger here is clearly justified but sadly nothing will be done.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:49:28 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I hated the guy in the 2s challenge. |
elsapo is one of the better photographers here. The fact that he has infinite patience for bullshit and acrimony is a testament to his character, which was tested during that silliness, and which passed admirably. Would that the mob had as much character as he. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:49:49 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Becuase I don't see the pitch forks and torches aimed at Judi who admitted doing the same thing. |
It was determined that Judi was staying at her fathers house, and that was indeed out the door.
I think if any others were brought to attention for the same offense, the same request would be made. I don't sense any tongue in cheekiness about it though. |
Then you don't know Nuzzer like I know Nuzzer.
So, if he lied and said it was outside his father's house, that would be OK?
Honesty is so overrated these days. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:50:09 PM · #98 |
| We've been down this road before with the 2 second and 4am challenges. If there's no special rule to enforce the guidelines, then the potential will exist for DNMC entries to score high. Some people will follow the guidelines to the letter and others will completely ignore them; and while the former may be outraged by the latter, no rules were broken. This isn't really much different from photographers who colorize a subject to meet a color challenge... and some of those have actually ribboned! It would be nice if everyone played along in the spirit of the game, but some will do whatever is allowed, and life goes on. |
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:51:54 PM · #99 |
Hopefully what I'm about to say will help but I'm not so sure.
I did enter this image into the challenge knowing that it was not 47 steps from my door, or any door. I didn't do it to annoy anybody and I didn't think the shot had a chance of doing as well as it did. I have seen many shots in challenges that don't adhere to the challenge description and nobody seemes to mind. You may find it hard to believe but I would prefer challenges where we were not able to shoehorn like this. It is not feasable to do that as you would need to restrict the topics so much as to almost kill DPC.
My comments in the image were not intended to rub people̢۪s noses in anything, simply a tounge-in-cheek acknowledgement that following the challenge description to the letter is not a requirement. I apologise if the tone of the comment caused offence.
I approach DPC as a fun site and didn't intend to be the "bad boy" in this instance. I understand the sentiments behind many of your comments, although I am surprised to be called some of the names I have been.
I find it ironic that if I had left the photo comments blank there probably would not be an issue. If I had said in the comments "we were camping near the beach this weekend so had this view on our doorstep" there would be no issue. Telling the truth has been the trigger for all this "discussion".
I could request a DQ but I would find that a little hypocritical given that I knew the shot was DNMC when I entered it. Maybe the good that has come out of this is that the discussion around DNMC is happening, unfortunately it means I get called many names in the process
Yes, I am sorry about the situation. Yes, I'll probably shoehorn entries in future, No, I probably won̢۪t go so far as this. Yes, I'll carry on at DPC and have fun.
Regards
Nuzzer
|
|
|
|
11/16/2009 05:51:54 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Nuzzer is a long standing member |
Than he should have known better and put the pic in a free study.
And yes I have no respect for anyone who does this. I hated the guy in the 2s challenge. It even lead to special challenges where disrespecting the challenge subject like 5s would end in DQ.
Maybe the next challenge like this should have the wording: "If you don't respect the spirit of this challenge, be ready for an angry mob with pitchforks"
If you can't deal with reactions like this, than don't disrespect the spirit of this site and its challenges. |
Hey, no more tulip tours for you young man! |
|
