| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2013 05:35:42 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can remember threads that had TONS of people pleading for leniency. HERE we have a thread with a bunch of people demanding the opposite. Funny town we live in... |
I'm not one demanding the opposite but I do expect an even playing field. I'm quite happy for the decision made and trust the SC judgement.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who had a DQ for not supplying proof in the required 48 hours that would have also liked a bit of leniency!
If the SC could be a little more transparent when making these decisions and informing via an update on the thread it would ease the minds of many. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:06:33 PM · #52 |
| Easy solution for the future and for today's busy lives ...make it 72 hours and lets all move forward. There is alway a first.. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:13:51 PM · #53 |
Did my post seem accusatory? I didn't mean it to be. Simply that it seems rules have been important since I have been a member.
Enlightened: If we made it 72 hours it would not be long before someone needed 73 hours and we would be right back where we are now. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:26:42 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
I'm sure there are plenty of people who had a DQ for not supplying proof in the required 48 hours that would have also liked a bit of leniency! |
I'm quite sure there's not plenty of people who got a DQ like this. The image was ok, photos were ok, a late submission shouldn't be ground for a DQ. I guess SC could have waited more before announcing the DQ. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:30:32 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Enlightened:
Easy solution for the future and for today's busy lives ...make it 72 hours and lets all move forward. There is alway a first.. |
If it's 72 hours and there's an issue with the image, it means the new 3rd place spends less time on the front page. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:32:04 PM · #56 |
| There are rules and then there are Rules. I am certainly comfortable in DPC taking a hard line on rules such as entry submission deadlines and editing restrictions but, when circumstances warrant it, allowing a bit more flexibility with the 48 hour rule to get the original file in. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:35:43 PM · #57 |
Actually, it'd probably be easier to submit the two files up-front, the original and the edited version. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but this would speed up validation of the top three.
Also, storage is cheap these days, so even if there were loads of large originals uploaded they could always be deleted at the end of the validation period to free up space. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 06:49:13 PM · #58 |
It's called having 'mercy'!
When I was in Europe, and got a HM for this shot I submitted the original via my Ipad but somehow it wiped off all the exif data, (if anyone knows why that is let me know), anyway by the time I found that out it was already well into the 4th day after rollover.  Frisca was really awesome about it, and said she would wait for it, and gave me leniency because we were travelling. I eventually uploaded it on my sons laptop, that took I think to my recollection over a week, because not all our accommodation offered WIFI. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 07:02:20 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Enlightened:
Easy solution for the future and for today's busy lives ...make it 72 hours and lets all move forward. There is alway a first.. |
If it's 72 hours and there's an issue with the image, it means the new 3rd place spends less time on the front page. |
True! Forget the 72 hours. In my world this really isn't a big thing...so a rule got bent! I tell my staff at work that rules are like an elastic band you can bend them if you need to but don't break the elastic and make sure it goes back to its original shape! Unless it causes a health or safety risk - then they don't move!
Since the dq was announced but then reversed the SC could issue two seconds, a new third and so on so no one loses out.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2013 08:19:56 PM · #60 |
Well GeneralE. I looked back several posts and I fail to see what you are referring to. What I see are valid questions about why the photo was reinstated.
This thread has been going on for quite sometime now. The responsible party IMHO should have come forward and stated their case but has not. Therefore they should resign. More than one SC should know the answers and they should have resolved this issue long ago. As far as "mercy", a can of worms is always opened when rules are not strictly adhered to. Someone has no balls and should step down. Strangely, Mr. Ward, who has shown a desire to help on the SC has been denied. He is very knowledgeable and seems like a fair gentleman. Why is he being black balled?
There are very simple rules which have been in place since the beginning of DPC. If they had been followed none of this would have happened. Someone thought they were smarter than the one who made the set of rules. I don't think they were. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 08:30:19 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well GeneralE. I looked back several posts and I fail to see what you are referring to. |
Stuff like this ... I do not read it as a "request for more information" ...
Originally posted by David Ey:
Someone has some splaining to do. |
Originally posted by David Ey:
This thread has been going on for quite sometime now. The responsible party IMHO should have come forward and stated their case but has not. Therefore they should resign.
|
Yeah, thanks ... glad I said something.
Bottom line -- the will of the voters has been reflected in the results, rather than the ultra-stringent application of a rule with admitted flexibility, by a group charged with enforcing both the letter and the spirit of the rules in "the best interests" of the site.
You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the explitive problem? |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 08:30:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well GeneralE. I looked back several posts and I fail to see what you are referring to. What I see are valid questions about why the photo was reinstated.
This thread has been going on for quite sometime now. The responsible party IMHO should have come forward and stated their case but has not. Therefore they should resign. More than one SC should know the answers and they should have resolved this issue long ago. As far as "mercy", a can of worms is always opened when rules are not strictly adhered to. Someone has no balls and should step down. Strangely, Mr. Ward, who has shown a desire to help on the SC has been denied. He is very knowledgeable and seems like a fair gentleman. Why is he being black balled?
There are very simple rules which have been in place since the beginning of DPC. If they had been followed none of this would have happened. Someone thought they were smarter than the one who made the set of rules. I don't think they were. |
I think you're taking this a bit too serious. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 08:31:28 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well GeneralE. I looked back several posts and I fail to see what you are referring to. |
Stuff like this ... I do not read it as a "request for more information" ...
Originally posted by David Ey:
Someone has some splaining to do. |
Originally posted by David Ey:
This thread has been going on for quite sometime now. The responsible party IMHO should have come forward and stated their case but has not. Therefore they should resign.
|
Yeah, thanks ... glad I said something.
Bottom line -- the will of the voters has been reflected in the results, rather than the ultra-stringent application of a rule with admitted flexibility, by a group charged with enforcing both the letter and the spirit of the rules in "the best interests" of the site.
You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the explitive problem? |
Bravo! |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 09:09:32 PM · #64 |
In other words, rules what used to be "stringent" are now free to be upheld any way SC sees fit. I have been around dpc a long time and have just witnessed the official beginning of it's death. You know dang well this is not the way to run a FAIR site. Keep ruling this way and watch the members disappear.
"The will of the voters"?....I guess you could say that about every photo and there would be no need for SC huh?
"Stuff like this ... I do not read it as a "request for more information"...Many of us have numerous times ask for information.
"Yeah, thanks ... glad I said something"....you said nothing.
"........a rule with admitted flexibility, by a group charged with enforcing both the letter and the spirit of the rules in "the best interests" of the site.
You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the expletive problem?.....us (the voters) thought pictures should be awarded a ribbon ACORDING TO THE RULES. What is YOUR problem and where do you get the "admitted flexibility"? and the "best interests of the site"? Must be one of the super powers YOU have given yourself.
I wasn't alone in wanting answers neighbor but all you wanted to do was throw your weight around and spout a bunch of crap and deny there is a problem. Goodnight sucker. I'm done. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 09:33:47 PM · #65 |
The rule we are discussing regarding flexibility is the 48 hours to submit proof rule after rollover. Yes, we all know this rule, especially members who ribbon frequently. However, we are not always aware of how our image is doing, because we're on assignment/traveling/in the hospital/etc. without access to the internet. As yet another DPCer who was traveling when one of my images required validation, I sent an email to explain the situation, and in my instance, they also allowed me to upload beyond the 48 hours. It is up to the SC if they will extend the submission date, usually by another day or so. I agree that SC was a little quick in announcing the DQ. And perhaps they should have posted some clarification sooner. But beyond that, this truly seems to be a tempest in a teacup, and beating up on Paul is uncalled for.
This thread should probably be locked-down before it becomes yet another rant about Langdon's inaction, which is where this seems to be heading. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 09:43:47 PM · #66 |
Ok, as I understand it... Since the results had not been recalculated, only Langdon can do that, the image was allowed to be considered and validated.
Now I'm left wondering... If the results had not been recalculated, why was a message posted saying they were? A lot of upheaval could have been avoided, had the message never been posted.
Actually, I don't really need an explanation. But, I would suggest making sure a DQ is a DQ, before saying it is a DQ. But then SC may have already thought of this...;-). At least I hope they did...
ETA: I am not trying to beat anyone up on this. I would just prefer to see more images, and less venom...
Message edited by author 2013-12-23 21:46:52. |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 09:56:44 PM · #67 |
Before this does get locked down I want to THANK the SC for all the work that they do do! For the time that they donate to this site, for the headaches of issuing DQ's, for answering questions and for reaching out to the members when they need it. For their encouraging remarks and for their willingness to be here. THANK YOU!
PS Bear- Music would be a great addition! |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 09:57:00 PM · #68 |
When I grew up PK was chewing gum. Is it still around?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2013 10:00:42 PM · #69 |
|
|
|
12/23/2013 11:43:28 PM · #70 |
I saw twice I believe that some one said the new third place ribbon stayed and there were two reds awarded... ah nope, the yellow ribbon dissapeard from my page... (just fyi)
Personaly I am Happy she got put back, it was my fave of the challenge and getting a ribbon for such a beautiful photo getting DQ'd was embarrasing!
|
|
|
|
12/23/2013 11:57:06 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by littlemav:
I saw twice I believe that some one said the new third place ribbon stayed and there were two reds awarded... ah nope, the yellow ribbon dissapeard from my page... (just fyi)
Personaly I am Happy she got put back, it was my fave of the challenge and getting a ribbon for such a beautiful photo getting DQ'd was embarrasing! |
No reason for you to be embarrassed. I absolutely love your attitude though, perfect attitude to have it this situation. |
|
|
|
12/24/2013 12:05:43 AM · #72 |
As I said in my OP raising this question, it's cool it was reinstated. I just think it should have been explained.
Even if all details weren't made available to the howling masses. Telling us that the first recalc was no longer needed or something would have solved this.
Her photo DID drop off the front page for a time. That's how I noticed the DQ in the first place. Then when looking set the challenge archives I saw it back in second and checked thus thread for an answer.
Message edited by author 2013-12-24 00:05:53.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2013 05:45:16 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the explitive problem? |
Isn't that true with every photo that finds it's way to the front page (voters put it there)? So now DPC should forgo validating the Top 5 photos entirely? That's kind of the logic your statement is leaning toward.
Every once in a while a photo that wins shouldn't be there ... (taken well before the challenge period, etc...). The rules in place, overall work quite well.
In the off chance that you're being sarcastic Paul, please disregard the above *&#$!% response. :-) |
|
|
|
12/24/2013 06:53:09 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the explitive problem? |
Isn't that true with every photo that finds it's way to the front page (voters put it there)? So now DPC should forgo validating the Top 5 photos entirely? That's kind of the logic your statement is leaning toward.
|
I thought it was a strange statement to make but I'm sure it was in sarcasm. |
|
|
|
12/24/2013 08:25:22 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... You (the voters) thought the picture should get the red ribbon it now has -- what's the explitive problem? |
Isn't that true with every photo that finds it's way to the front page (voters put it there)? So now DPC should forgo validating the Top 5 photos entirely? That's kind of the logic your statement is leaning toward.
Every once in a while a photo that wins shouldn't be there ... (taken well before the challenge period, etc...). The rules in place, overall work quite well.
In the off chance that you're being sarcastic Paul, please disregard the above *&#$!% response. :-) |
I think his intent was "this is the photo the voters picked for second assuming it was valid. We the site council eventually ruled it valid, so what's the problem?"
I don't think it's sarcasm as much as an unfinished thought.
They've made exceptions on original submission deadlines before and I don't think we want to be the technical foul police (except with regard to DNMC, LOL)
For me, again, it's more about the failure to communicate the reversal since they'd already communicated the DQ as well as put the DQ into effect.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
|
|
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: 08/23/2025 04:51:38 AM EDT.
