| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2009 01:45:37 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
I'd rather have an imperfect and hard to enforce rule than allow someone to thumb their noses at the challenge description, totally decieve us, and claim that it was perfectly legal.
- Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ. |
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
(j/k) |
While I know you are trying to be funny, I think you are helping me to make my point rather than yours. The challenge description for this B&W challenge says "N/A", so there is no DNMC here. If the challenge description had said "Take a B&W photo in-camera using B&W mode" and you used Photoshop to convert a color capture to B&W, then you would have cheated, but been legal under the current rules.
Now I have been around long enough to know that a "DQ for DNMC" is hard thing to implement, as it would be a can of worms for the SC. But the alternative is a reduced integrity of the site when someone wins a riboon or HM by devious means. The members venting in this thread are unhappy that this was deemed perfectly legal. So the question is do we do nothing and allow this to occur in the future (essentially sanctioning cheating in my opinion) or do we do something to prevent it from happening again.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 13:47:04. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:52:34 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
(j/k) |
While I know you are trying to be funny, I think you are helping me to make my point rather than yours. The challenge description for this B&W challenge says "N/A", so there is no DNMC here. If the challenge description had said "Take a B&W photo in-camera using B&W mode" and you used Photoshop to convert a color capture to B&W, then you would have cheated, but been legal under the current rules. |
It's lucky that the challenge description did not say "Take a B&W photo of anything you like" or else you too would have been branded childish, arrogant, a cheat, a liar, and a dick. That's not something I'd wish on anybody at DPC. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 01:57:43 PM · #178 |
Now this is what I continue reading,
Now now now, you all should really chill out and look at this for the silly and planned prank it really was. What is reality anyhow? What is truth? Who are we as a race and how can we really define that we exist? "I am, therefore I must be"? What is "be"? Don't get too hung up on syntax, this is a site for learning after all"! By the way, did you notice the deception in the way I depressed the button on my camera? You thought I was using my index finger and I actually was using my big toe! Pretty clever huh? We all love each other and though I understand we cannot communicate that as we should at times, don't be offended if I cleverly violate one of your core values. I am clever after all and what the heck are values anyhow?? Like come on people!! BTW, did you see the moose run across the road?
In my world, we call this bullshit. In the work world they call this bullshit. In the family world, they call this bullshit.
In the DPC world, we embrace this clever and creative manipulation ...... I mean Post Processing. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:06:26 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
The challenge description for this B&W challenge says "N/A", so there is no DNMC here. If the challenge description had said "Take a B&W photo in-camera using B&W mode" and you used Photoshop to convert a color capture to B&W, then you would have cheated, but been legal under the current rules. |
If the challenge required B&W mode, then that would be verifiable in EXIF and subject to a special rule. We can't enforce a special rule for something that can't be verified either way. Using only topics that are verifiable would eliminate the problem, although it also reduces the fun and learning experience of those who do make the effort to follow more subjective guidelines. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:06:37 PM · #180 |
It wasn't really raining in this one, I used a garden hose
This is a replica watch, really only cost $50 at a street market in Kuala Lumpor
The scene didn't really look like this, I had to use 3 exposures.
Man, it feels so good to get that off my chest. Living with the deception has been brutal!
Can you folks ever forgive me? ;-)
Can I sugggest we all just move on?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 14:07:05. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:08:56 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Using only topics that are verifiable would eliminate the problem, although it also reduces the fun and learning experience of those who do make the effort to follow more subjective guidelines. |
Yeah, back to that. It was a fun idea for a challenge and people got remarkable results 47 steps from their front doors. Let's not completely abandon the idea of relying on the word of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:10:53 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers! |
I always wondered what Scalvert avtually looked like. So I imported his little joker guy into Photoshop and blew him up. Kind of evil looking actually... so by looking at this I totally understand that he is also up to no good! :P
 
Original photo was illegally copied with ease from his portfolio. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:20:10 PM · #183 |
| The way you pasted the two halves together looks really bizarre. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 02:22:24 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The way you pasted the two halves together looks really bizarre. |
I know. It always looks freaky when you do that regardless who it is. Hope you didn't mind! :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:35:26 PM · #185 |
do you think your entry deserved anything but the recourse its' drawn... ?
come on.
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
It's lucky that the challenge description did not say "Take a B&W photo of anything you like" or else you too would have been branded childish, arrogant, a cheat, a liar, and a dick. That's not something I'd wish on anybody at DPC. |
haha jokes on you now. suck it up !
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 17:37:51.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:37:28 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by soup:
do you think your entry deserved anything but the recourse its' drawn... ? |
You're seriously defending name calling? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:38:19 PM · #187 |
name calling ?
i havent called anyone names...
you can pick and choose what you want to quote in a forum. and attach your own spin on that. but please don't put words in my mouth in the process...
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 17:39:52.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:39:25 PM · #188 |
| No, but you said his entry deserved what he got. What he got, in part, was called a dick, amongst other things. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:40:58 PM · #189 |
read above. mr. quick post/quoter
there - i called you a name. i should be shunned to the depths of DPC hell...
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:42:09 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by soup:
read above. mr. quick post/quoter
there - i called you a name. i should be shunned to the depths of DPC hell... |
Oh. Well, isn't my face red. And I didn't even read above! ;) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 05:44:55 PM · #191 |
OK. Louis.
if i sold you something that, when delivered, wasn't as i had described it. and i sent a note with a smile face and haha along with the product. would you feel angry?
would you send the product back ?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 17:45:37.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 06:11:50 PM · #192 |
Nuzzer, never mind the name calling.
I am of the opinion that the challenges on this site are too rigid and don't allow for much creativity. Which I think is ridiculous, since the most amazing thing is to see how people respond creatively to something.
It is an interesting photograph you took and if I could have voted, I would have given it a good score. Finding out it wasn't 47 steps from your home doesn't bother me. Why should it? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 06:13:11 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I actually took this photo in color. Bwahahahaha! Suckers!
(j/k) |
While I know you are trying to be funny, I think you are helping me to make my point rather than yours. The challenge description for this B&W challenge says "N/A", so there is no DNMC here. If the challenge description had said "Take a B&W photo in-camera using B&W mode" and you used Photoshop to convert a color capture to B&W, then you would have cheated, but been legal under the current rules. |
It's lucky that the challenge description did not say "Take a B&W photo of anything you like" or else you too would have been branded childish, arrogant, a cheat, a liar, and a dick. That's not something I'd wish on anybody at DPC. |
Oh, please. Apples to apples. Reread my post above. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 06:35:38 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Finding out it wasn't 47 steps from your home doesn't bother me. Why should it? |
Is it possible you share the same values?
Further more, finding out isn't the issue near as much as is the conceit associated with broadcasting it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 06:37:57 PM · #195 |
Bad showmanship
as my parents would say
nuff said |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 06:48:47 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Nuzzer, never mind the name calling.
I am of the opinion that the challenges on this site are too rigid and don't allow for much creativity. Which I think is ridiculous, since the most amazing thing is to see how people respond creatively to something.
It is an interesting photograph you took and if I could have voted, I would have given it a good score. Finding out it wasn't 47 steps from your home doesn't bother me. Why should it? |
If you can explain to me exactly how a challenge like this STIFLES creativity, instead of promoting it, maybe I'll listen a little more. The fact is, challenges like this help push us out of comfort zones and are an attempt to get creative juices flowing. Make us think a little harder and a little differently. Get us to look at things we wouldn't normally look at and say, "how can I make this something worthy?"
Unfortunately, and I think this is more along the lines of where your thinking was trying to go, it's the voters that then stifle that creativity. They are the ones that constantly vote the same things high, over and over again, while ignoring some of the best in creativity the site has to offer. So it's not the challenges that are too rigid, it's the thought-processes of the masses that is too rigid.
Unfortunately, this mass hive-mind like mentality then leads to things like this, where people just throw the spirit of a challenge to the wind in order to try and please the hive-mind and then there you go, death of creativity.
Of course, Nuzzer's case wasn't just simple ignoring the spirit of the challenge and the specific description, he was also testing the boundaries of site loopholes and trying to make some kind of statement. Whether he personally succeeded in whatever statement he was making is known only to him, but the reaction has been strong and real. (For the record, I don't approve of the name calling and believe that such things should be handled appropriately on an individual scale).
There's a reason why this site is called Digital Photography CHALLENGE, and that is because it involves various competitions designed to challenge you, the photographer, to try and experience and experiment with many different things. Some of these things are very specific and rigid, and some of them are wide open and fly-by-night. Sometimes you'll be asked to follow very specific steps, and then every month you are given an opportunity to just strut your stuff and anything goes.
Creativity is alive and well within EVERY challenge this site has ever had. If you have a problem being creative within a certain challenge, that is not the challenge's fault. That is your failing, as a photographer. There is always the choice to avoid the challenges you don't care for, or can't be creative in, and wait for one that you do care for, or can find a creative inspiration for.
There's a principle here that is being offended, with Nuzzer's entry, that is disappointing in every way. It is not the first time, and it won't be the last, but every time it happens it hurts. It hurts because it's a slap in the face to people that DO care, it's a lack of respect to the people that TRY, and it's a symptom of a large and growing cancer of our society.
We DON'T need to do anything to win, we DON'T need to do everything in our power to skim the line and exploit the loopholes, and we DON'T need to take people willing to do such things lightly and with our heads bowed. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:51:19 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
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 |
Gerry, speaking for myself, and as someone who was initially quite angered and offended by the situation, your apology is appreciated and accepted. Even the most upstanding people make a bad decision here and there, and I, for one, am willing to chalk this up as one of those situations.
I disagree, however, that withdrawing your entry would be hypocritical. While I know you realized this was DNMC when you submitted it, you also did not realize the impact it would create. I also know that if I was sittinng in 6th or 11th place right now, I would probably be fairly livid. Far from being hypocritical, withdrawing your entry would probably be seen by most as attempting to right a wrong, and would go a long way in rebuilding the respect that, even taking into account this unfortunate situation, your overall history here shows you deserve. Speaking only for myself, I encourage you to reconsider.
Thanks,
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:19:31 PM · #198 |
And then what? we ask Judi to disqualify herself so that the image sitting in 21st place can be inside the top 20? Once you start with one, you have to go after the others. Sitting in 6th or 11th, moving up a place achieves nothing, you still didn't win.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:30:07 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by 3DsArcher:
And then what? we ask Judi to disqualify herself so that the image sitting in 21st place can be inside the top 20? Once you start with one, you have to go after the others. Sitting in 6th or 11th, moving up a place achieves nothing, you still didn't win. |
And then there is  MichaelC's image that should be DQéd too, to ensure that there would now be three new top 20 images!!!!
Now isn't that interesting...all 3 images were taken New Zealand....and no one else has admitted to it....so does that mean that the only bad eggs are from the Australia/New Zealand clan....and that everyone else is angelic...hmmm...I would say there are loads more in that challenge that would fit this criteria...but didn't have the balls to admit to it!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:33:57 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by 3DsArcher:
And then what? we ask Judi to disqualify herself so that the image sitting in 21st place can be inside the top 20? Once you start with one, you have to go after the others. Sitting in 6th or 11th, moving up a place achieves nothing, you still didn't win. |
And then there is MichaelC's image that should be DQéd too, to ensure that there would now be three new top 20 images!!!!
Now isn't that interesting...all 3 images were taken New Zealand....and no one else has admitted to it....so does that mean that the only bad eggs are from the Australia/New Zealand clan....and that everyone else is angelic...hmmm...I would say there are loads more in that challenge that would fit this criteria...but didn't have the balls to admit to it! |
Completely agree. No-one will admit not following the challenge brief now, will they? Not after this spectacle. How are we ever going to know who else lied? :/
I don't see why Gerry alone should be pressured into a self-dq. It's nonsense to ask it of anyone really. |
|
