| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 03:29:02 PM · #451 |
Can you guys slow down with all these postings - I'm old and have a job keeping up with it all
(Well someone had to post it)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:29:18 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't. |
Why shouldn't he? It's not against the voting rules. Besides, he said on the entries where he was sure it was pointandshoot's photo he gave it a lower score than he normally would have. Wouldn't cheaters do the exact opposite of that?
Originally posted by keegbow:
Also we here that he doesn't care about votes they mean little to him....so why did he vote at all? it all points to him trying to help the score of someone who's style he liked. |
He's given many ribbons to others as well (RKT, Goodman, etc). The common theme is these photographs have more depth to them. They're not the one night stand photos that get newbies in a frenzy and win these challenges. That's not a style inasmuch as it's a greater appreciation for non-commercial photography. |
To answer why shouldn't he? well thats simply a moral thing, like I said I know I wouldn't.
So why did he vote at all if the votes meant nothing to him?
by the way I have never said he was cheating, what concerns me is that people here want him to treated differently because of his presence in the community, this is a dangerous road to travel if he is not treated in the same manner as everyone else. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:30:02 PM · #453 |
Just in case there's a chance that scalvert and GeneralE are talking about *me*, let me be clear about this. I did send a ticket to SC when I was suspended. This was the response I got:
Hi Don,
I'm afraid it's not a prank. The suspension stems from buddy voting on pointandshoot's entries. The voting pattern doesn't look remotely like anything else you've given (or he's received), and doesn't appear to correspond to the merits of the entries. You've given pointandshoot more 10's than his next two highest voters combined, and more 10's in the past 12 months than your next favorite (e301) got from you in six years. It would be VERY difficult to attribute this to coincidence, hence the suspension for buddy voting. We're at least as disappointed as you are. :-(
Best regards,
Shannon
Where's the invitation to further private discussion? They've made up their mind, and how can I prove that pointandshoot did NOT contact me? So I posted the suspension here, and then got these intimidating replies about how they could show the data if I dared to let them blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:37:26 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
"...and doesn't appear to correspond to the merits of the entries." |
That's an interesting comment right there...but I guess, merits according to whom?
Anyway I hope this is resolved without much more calling out as it all seems like a mistake and understandable how emotions or defense on both sides would bound. Hopefully there are lessons learned and no hard feelings...???
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:38:17. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:39:03 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Where's the invitation to further private discussion? |
Did you also get a note from Langdon? Maybe you could post that as well. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:42:02 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't. |
Why shouldn't he? It's not against the voting rules. Besides, he said on the entries where he was sure it was pointandshoot's photo he gave it a lower score than he normally would have. Wouldn't cheaters do the exact opposite of that? |
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:42:24 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
This risky scenario actually now exists for Each and Every One Of Us. Don was sent to the back of the bus for his tastes, because the cold numbers can be interpreted as Unfair Voting. But the grander, larger Disparate Impact of the SC approach (that is applied to all of us) means than any of us that consistently give high or low marks to any style or genre or subject matter here are likely to be voting on a subset of photographers who tend to produce more of that work. The less mainstream the image style/genre, the more likely that fewer photographers are creating those images here, the more likely that any vote cast on those image will go to those photographers.
The response to this can be to compress one's voting scale so much that there will be "no sore thumb" voting patterns, but this makes the voting scale useless. We could just go to a binary scale: 1 for like it, 0 for like it less. Add all the ones up to determine a winner. Also absurd.
While I do welcome and support the SC efforts to scrub out buddy/team/friend voting, vote trading, etc. I can find no validity in this "unfair" criterion/analysis.
In fact, I will ask yet again: How do any of us vote highly on the images that appeal to us, low on those that do not, consistently over time without being at risk for this same treatment? Please describe the criteria specifically: what percentage of high votes to any single photographer over what specific time period will constitute "unfair"? What relative level above any individual's average vote will be defined as high? What will be the regular frequency of these scrubs, and what time period will be scanned?
And this situation and request is depressingly ludicrous: to ensure we are not snared in this "by the numbers" web, one must carefully consider while voting if This image Might Be by the Same Photographer one awarded a 10 in any previous challenge, so as not to give the otherwise instinctive 10 vote again. This policy now positively REINFORCES the idea of attempting to discern/guess the photographer while voting so as to alter one's vote casting downward.
This goes directly opposite to the noble claims of preserving the integrity of the voting process, it just drives people to give lower scores to imagery they love, higher scores to imagery they don't love, just to be "safe"
One must reasonably ask: what value does any "safe" vote have any more? One must reasonably ask: if my style is sufficiently unique that my identity is correctly guessed fairly often during challenges, will I now be getting deliberately adjusted votes? Or will those who like my work and vote "unsafely" be put at risk of suspension simply because they like my style consistently over time? Why, then, would any of us enter challenges, or vote on them any more?
Langdon, with respect, you really need to read up on the concept of Disparate Impact, sir. A policy or practice that, even if unintentionally, has a disparate, discriminatory impact on a minority group is still discriminatory, even if unintended or coincidental. Here, this practice is absolutely (inadvertently) targeting users with non-mainstream tastes in imagery/art. This is a private site, and you can do what you want. But understand clearly what you are, in fact, doing, even if you consider it an unintended but unalterable side effect, or an effect that you are unwilling to alter.
You have established a policy/practice that actually prevents or punishes conscientious voting by a passionate subgroup of the membership--is this not fundamentally at odds with the basic charter of DPC? If you do not change this, in what manner do you expect us to remain here? How, in good faith, can we remain?
People who team/friend/buddy/trade vote should be found and stopped. People who consistently vote their hearts on imagery that moves them, no matter the photographer, no matter the number of times, should be ENCOURAGED--both those voters and those photographers. If your process cannot in any way discern the difference, the process is fundamentally flawed, and must be repaired or discarded. [Or, since this IS your site, you can do the analysis that says this subset of membership is small and insignificant enough that it is not worth your time or effort, and shedding us is the easiest solution]. |
Sorry to just quote and repost, but I really think this is an especially good commentary and worth re-reading if you skipped it the first time. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:44:33 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those with suspensions were asked to contact us via ticket if they wanted to discuss it, and NOT to air dirty laundry in the forums. |
You're wrong on my email Shannon. The email said to not use a ticket or a PM only to reply to the email. |
"Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reply directly to this email rather than air any laundry on the site's forum." The email WAS a ticket, and the point remains that we offered a way to discuss it (both to you AND Don).
Originally posted by kleski:
And last night any one of the SC that was on could have said something to me but evidently dragging up Don's stuff was more important. |
Bingo. Had those affected kept it private, we could have responded to more tickets instead of dealing with the fears and assumptions of a stoked up crowd. I addressed several tickets last night, but couldn't get to all of them.
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
I think the airing in public is tremendously democratising. |
See above. Transparency is good, but it can also distract from or compound the problem. In situations like this, it's usually better to explain the whole situation after attempting to resolve it. We generally try to keep personal information private, so this thread went on for quite a while and generated all sorts of animosity, before any evidence was available, simply because of who was implicated. That's not transparency, it's speculation and assumption, and generates ill will all around. When presented with the details, Don did not respond to the ticket at all— no rebuttal, no counter evidence, no list of awards given, no comparison to other abstract styles, nothing. Instead, he chose to do exactly what he was asked NOT to do, resulting in WAY more damage to the community.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:45:48. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:46:13 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
So why did he vote at all if the votes meant nothing to him? |
I don't know. Is that what he said? He has almost 100,000 votes cast so my guess is it does mean something to him.
Originally posted by keegbow:
by the way I have never said he was cheating, what concerns me is that people here want him to treated differently because of his presence in the community, this is a dangerous road to travel if he is not treated in the same manner as everyone else. |
My mistake for that assumption. However, I'm not sure I follow your logic. If he didn't cheat then why should he be treated like those who have cheated in the past? As pointed out earlier, this isn't finding out he had multiple ghost accounts being used to cast illegal votes, exif tampering, etc. Now, I can see how his voting record might raise a red flag and that I'm fine with but if that's all that was taken into account then that is very troubling.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:54:01.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:48:29 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
In fact, I will ask yet again: How do any of us vote highly on the images that appeal to us, low on those that do not, consistently over time without being at risk for this same treatment? Please describe the criteria specifically: what percentage of high votes to any single photographer over what specific time period will constitute "unfair"? What relative level above any individual's average vote will be defined as high? What will be the regular frequency of these scrubs, and what time period will be scanned? |
Any description of the specific criteria used to evaluate voting becomes a virtual manual the real cheaters (not anyone in this thread) can use to evade detection. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:49:24 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by keegbow:
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't. |
Why shouldn't he? It's not against the voting rules. Besides, he said on the entries where he was sure it was pointandshoot's photo he gave it a lower score than he normally would have. Wouldn't cheaters do the exact opposite of that? |
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
Would it have mattered? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:49:35 PM · #462 |
 Keegbow, honest question - if you recognize Timfy's kids, do you NOT vote on the shot because of that? He isn't entering any more these days (he has a Real Life (tm) now!) but when he did, his kids were featured regularly and often. Hard to NOT know it was Tim's entry. So were people NOT to vote on it? Just curious how that would work. This goes for other recognizable features/landmarks/models. If we didn't vote on any of those, we'd be unfairly slighting them, don't you think? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:50:51 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Any description of the specific criteria used to evaluate voting becomes a virtual manual the real cheaters (not anyone in this thread) can use to evade detection. |
That's why we didn't post everything— only what raised a flag in the first place. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:54:53 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
Would it have mattered? |
Enormously. Asking us to reconsider with counter-evidence in private is very different from a public appeal that generates mass hostility before offering any sort of rebuttal. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:00:02 PM · #465 |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:03:29 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
Would it have mattered? |
Enormously. Asking us to reconsider with counter-evidence in private is very different from a public appeal that generates mass hostility before offering any sort of rebuttal. |
what counter-evidence? he voted as described. it's the analysis of these votes that is faulty. slap first and ask never will always get you hostility. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:08:19 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
Would it have mattered? |
Enormously. Asking us to reconsider with counter-evidence in private is very different from a public appeal that generates mass hostility before offering any sort of rebuttal. |
what counter-evidence? he voted as described. |
As described in this thread or in a private response to us? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:09:07 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How could we know that until the information was posted in this thread? Oh yeah, Don could have sent it to SC in a Ticket ... |
Would it have mattered? |
Enormously. Asking us to reconsider with counter-evidence in private is very different from a public appeal that generates mass hostility before offering any sort of rebuttal. |
In my case there was nothing to point me to my crime except that I had participated in a voting irregularity. I did send a reply to that yesterday. Oddly my response came only when I sent in a copy of my first post on this thread. I have responded to that reply and hope that the issue will be resolved soon.
Thanks for what you do...it's a thankless job :P |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:09:57 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by marbo:
Bump :-) |
Thanks for the laugh on the "bump" |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:15:05 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to picture someone's response when they get a PM "We are considering suspending you because ___________. Please justify your actions. Sincerely, SC" |
that would have been a lot nicer than what I got...basically I got the you have been tried and convicted letter, knowing what I had done, like I do now, would have helped me sleep better instead of the 3 hours I got. |
I'll note your opinion. Maybe when this specific situation settles down we should run a poll on that question. |
Seriously, why would you need a poll to decide on this issue? If you were to post the following poll question:
"Given a situation where SC feels that statistical data may warrant the suspending of a member, do you think the penalty should be issued before or after hearing the member's explanation?" How many "before" votes do you think you will get?
Edited to add: OK, Mark Simms will probably vote "before"
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 16:16:57. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:28:52 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
In fact, I will ask yet again: How do any of us vote highly on the images that appeal to us, low on those that do not, consistently over time without being at risk for this same treatment? Please describe the criteria specifically: what percentage of high votes to any single photographer over what specific time period will constitute "unfair"? What relative level above any individual's average vote will be defined as high? What will be the regular frequency of these scrubs, and what time period will be scanned? |
Any description of the specific criteria used to evaluate voting becomes a virtual manual the real cheaters (not anyone in this thread) can use to evade detection. |
I'm at a loss here. "real cheaters (not anyone in this thread)..." Does this mean that all the "real cheaters" have been caught and banished, and that all of us posting here have been vetted? So what is Don? A "pretend cheater?"
I am trying not to be or appear hostile. I love this place, I appreciate it. It has worked very well indeed. What many of us are trying to say to Langdon and the SC is that the criteria used for scrubbing some votes (zeuszen's) and detecting friend voting should be reexamined, and this for THE VERY REASON that the application of said criteria is counterproductive, that is to say that it DIS
COURAGES genuine appreciation and criticism via voting... Not saying that it MIGHT do so but that it now alarmingly DOES so. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:35:04 PM · #472 |
I understand the idea of resolving issues in private, cooler heads, no embarrassing of accused members--I really do, and I respect it.
But it is unacceptable to further accuse an alleged accuser that another crime is committed by going public with their own situation. And it is verging on deplorable that a methodical, secret process is in place which potentially affects each and every one of us cumulatively over time, as we vote passionately and discerningly on imagery that moves us--utterly unaware of even the nature of sword that dangles over us. And for some SC members, even now, to be suggesting that "this could have all been handled privately..." can at the very least be interpreted as secretive back-room tactics, or a cover-up of a poorly thought out process, etc.
If there exists a voting rule that can be violated, but it cannot be enumerated and defined clearly and is, rather, lurking out there, a line we dare not cross but we may not know where it is, then this is precisely the kind of rule/process that needs open discussion and definition. (Oh, you'll know when suspend your ass, that's how you'll know! Just keep walking blind--when you fall off the cliff, you'll know you went too far...)
If the rule is: X number of votes that are at or above Y% of your statistical average over the last Z number of challenges in which you voted, awarded intentionally or not to the same photographer within those same series of challenges, will be perceived as buddy or friend voting, period. This review will be conducted quarterly. The slate is wiped clean after each review, and a new review period begins. -- Well, we know what we are dealing with. Right now, we have literally no idea whatsoever what the criterion is, over how many challenges, or even if the cumulative tally is ever wiped clean--longer term, active members may be at higher risk simply due to length of membership and their eager participation.
If the timing is arbitrary (well, it's been a while, what 4-5 years, guess we oughta do another scrub) that is very different, more risky.
I am not suggesting that we rig it so it is easily gamed by those who deliberately cheat, but understanding the basic process and measurement and threshold is essential so that others of us can be sure (as best we can) not to violate it, or so we can decide that attempted compliance is so onerous and odious that we prefer not to participate.
If an individualized metric was provided (your voting pattern over the past 2 months reveals a tendency to give 3 photographers a statisically significantly higher score, so for the remainder of the quarter, to remain below the favoritism threshold, you will need to (a) stop voting in the remaining challenges, or (b) award no score higher than 7 to those specific photographers--since you cannot know for sure which images are theirs, you could cap your scoring to 7 for the next 4 weeks)... Well, the ludicrousness of this sort of metric says a lot about the ludicrousness of the "rule" too.
It should absolutely NOT be secret and private that the number of high/low scores any of us awards purely on our responses to the images themselves has the potential to be cumulatively considered a suspension-worthy violation at some undefined point in time later on. THAT should be open, publicly known. If it is embarrassing to the site to have it known, well, that speaks volumes.
I still stand by the SC -- I don't believe there is deliberate intent to do harm here. However inadvertently, Harm is being done, and the process as described suggests clearly that harm will be done again. The process and criteria are flawed, and need to be repaired or replaced or abandoned.
Handling specific instances private, at the member's discretion, is appropriate.
Calls for SECRECY, at this point, on the basic definitions of what constitutes a violation, how a violation is defined, how the process works, etc., are most unbecoming and inadvertent harm is being done to the SC's reputation by the SC itself....
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 16:44:35. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:40:07 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by tnun:
the criteria used for scrubbing some votes (zeuszen's) and detecting friend voting should be reexamined... |
The criteria for scrubbing Zeuszen's votes is simple: if he didn't vote 20%, they were scrubbed. None of his votes have EVER been discarded for any other reason, nor did we threaten to do so. You're jumping to conclusions from the forum thread when you really have no idea what the story is (nor do you need to)— a vivid illustration of my point regarding handling such matters in private. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:44:20 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
It should absolutely NOT be secret and private that the number of high/low scores any of us awards purely on our responses to the images themselves has the potential to be cumulatively considered a suspension worth violation at some undefined point in time later on. |
There is no such set criteria. Another hysterical reaction that might have been avoided by handling such a highly unusual situation in private. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 04:47:45 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by tnun:
the criteria used for scrubbing some votes (zeuszen's) and detecting friend voting should be reexamined... |
The criteria for scrubbing Zeuszen's votes is simple: if he didn't vote 20%, they were scrubbed. None of his votes have EVER been discarded for any other reason, nor did we threaten to do so. You're jumping to conclusions from the forum thread when you really have no idea what the story is (nor do you need to)— a vivid illustration of my point regarding handling such matters in private. |
Okay, my mistake. But how am I to know what it is I don't need to know, and what about the rest of my post? |
|
