| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2015 11:09:18 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm still here, so put away your landscapes and stock photos. |
... but sometimes I can't help myself and enter those! Phooey.
I suppose I could say the same ... still here ... put away the nudes, super collages, over the top textures. Well, sometimes the blurry messes don't fare so well either. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 11:10:03 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I favour allowing the SC to use their judgement about whether or not any good purpose is served by naming miscreants. SC members are selected for their ability to be wise and impartial jurists more than for any other quality, presumably.
If a transgression involves a systematic fraud, like the Rikki case (was that his name?) then yes, disclosing the identity of all involved and kicking them out without further ado is appropriate. But if it's just a case of misguided buddy (positive) voting, or of some kind of dumb personal vendetta (negative) voting, SC ought to be free to privately say to the offender, "We're watching you, and now you can cool your jets for a couple of months while you consider your responsibilities to the DPC community before you can play with us again". After that, if bad behaviour continues, toss them out and name the names.
Let SC make the call. They're our moderators, so let moderation prevail until they think moderation has been reasonably exhausted. |
+1 Well said. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 11:10:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm still here, so put away your landscapes and stock photos. |
... but sometimes I can't help myself and enter those! Phooey.
put away the nudes |
whats wrong with nudes? |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 11:14:58 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm still here, so put away your landscapes and stock photos. |
... but sometimes I can't help myself and enter those! Phooey.
I suppose I could say the same ... still here ... put away the nudes, super collages, over the top textures. Well, sometimes the blurry messes don't fare so well either. |
whats wrong with nudes? |
Just don't care for them as challenge entries. Yes, many people consider them 'artistic', but then again many consider Landscapes 'artistic' or Pet Portraits, etc... not everyone likes those either. Just a matter of what a person likes I guess.
Message edited by author 2015-02-28 12:58:37. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 11:16:29 AM · #30 |
I would like to know the details of each crime when a person has been convicted. I don't care to know who The Perp was. :D
I think hearing what was found to be a crime educates us as to what's acceptable and what's not. It also educates us in advance that we should not even try to go down that road... SC will find us out.
I think it will make SC's job easier, if the public knows what crimes have been found out. We'll commit less crimes even accidental ones if we know details of prior crimes.
I don't think the public would benefit from hearing who committed the crime, if The Perp is to be allowed to return.
If he's gone for good, then I think it's best for the public to know that, since we could be "on the lookout" for his return. More eyes are better than only SC's in that case, I think.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:00:23 PM · #31 |
On the voting rules page it says this:
We will:
display all entries in a random order for each voter.
group entries you have rated with other entries of the same rating on your main voting page.
declare the entry with the highest average score at the end of voting to be the winner.
recognize the first, second and third place entries on the front page.
use automatic and manual methods to actively monitor voting patterns for abuse.
ignore the votes of any user we believe is voting disruptively.
disqualify challenge entries from, suspend or ban anyone who abuses the voting system in any way.
So here's my question .... Is there a guideline to how SC decides how to punish and for how long?
I think we all should know the rules and the consequences for not following them. This is not the same as a DQ, a DQ affects the individual photographer only. While I agree that the big pink line is offensively blatant, it doesn't matter... everyone knows anyway and we all know we make mistakes from time to time.
A Voting Violation affects everyone who entered the challenge, maybe that wouldn't even include the perpetrator... and IMO that's a totally different story.
I believe there should be a specific punishment. First time offenders, no need to make it public, but there should be a specific punishment and it should be posted.... "If you violate THEN you will get..." kind of thing.
If you do it again, then.... what happens.
But at the point at which someone has violated to the point of no return, banned from the site, we all should know who left and why. It should be announced so that we know what happened. It should be public so that the forums don't go to rant about what "might" have happened and who "might" have done what. No wishy washy room for rumors - we are all adults here. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:01:50 PM · #32 |
| The only reason I would like to know who major offenders are is for the sake of that person's credibility. I know it's the internet, and I really shouldn't be trusting people, but I trust the folks on this site far more than I should probably. If someone is intentionally being dishonest, should it not be an open hit on their credibility? I feel making TOS violators known would be a means of the site looking out for me. Like when a sex offender moves into your neighborhood, they're required to tell you. Yes, I just compared TOS violators to sex offenders, perhaps there's better examples, but that example makes the gist of my point clearest. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:20:53 PM · #33 |
The main argument so far is to "shame" folks, with plain old curiosity a close second.
Neither of these is a compelling reason to name names. Most folks, faced with a "public shaming", would choose not to return to the "scene of their crime". And the community loses an otherwise valuable and/or repected member. You have NO idea who or why someone violates TOS.
The argument about crimes in "real life" are an inadequate comparison as this is a virtual reality, with virtual prizes. There is no legal system here, or attorneys to defend or prosecute. Just us SC using the site guidelines to keeps things as fair and fun as possible.
We don't issue warnings; the TOS are the warning. And we do not take these suspensions lightly. Any time there is some sort of issue involving a potential suspension, we deliberate at great length.
We make these announcements to reassure everyone that we are watching and listening, and to remind everyone to play fairly. Only upon issuing a permanent ban would we consider it "fair" to mention names.
Lydia, with regard to this specific incident, the transgressions were disclosed in the admin announcement. It was a matter of targeted lowball voting over the course of many months and/or several challenges, depending on the individual case. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:28:36 PM · #34 |
Lyn, as the newest SC I cannot answer conclusively. But as I said before, the stated rules ARE the "warning". And as you said, we're all adults here, and we all know what is right or wrong.
There also seems to be the perception that we are acting precipitously, upon a single transgression. The truth is that we study months of data and then deliberate at length about our findings. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:52:49 PM · #35 |
I'd have to say that I certainly trust the collective judgement of the SC as to how to handle the various offenses, and the offenders.
My interest in knowing would more be from the standpoint of being warned off someone who becomes a repeat offender, especially when their behavior is a blight on the community.
Part of what SC does is do their best to ensure that we play nice and abide the rules. They're generally lenient, and as someone who has pushed boundaries in the past, I have to state that they're quite tolerant.
But we have had some bad apples, (She whose name must not be spoken) comes to mind, and if someone wants to repeatedly act in a manner destructive to the community, out 'em, and get rid of 'em.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:59:01 PM · #36 |
So we know, the warning in the rules is to be taken seriously. And if something triggers you (SC) to look back on someone's voting patterns, you see a problem, you deliberate and take action (if necessary)..... IMO that's fair. Thanks for reminding us that there can be consequences. I still think, though, that the consequences should be defined. You said the rules are the warning, so upon finding a problem is there an automatic suspension and for how long?
And then after the suspension, if the person violates again are they banned? If so, and at that point, no shame or curiosity intended, we all should know who and why for the purpose of keeping things running smoothly (ie: no rumors, no punches, just open communication). |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 01:02:32 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
If he's gone for good, then I think it's best for the public to know that, since we could be "on the lookout" for his return. More eyes are better than only SC's in that case, I think. |
How do you know the perp. is a he? |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 01:03:07 PM · #38 |
I think the people that we often refer to as trolls, who vote consistently low (maybe 1thru 3) regardless of the challenge
really harm this site. I would like to think that patterns like this, regardless of the psychosis behind them, are exposed and that the people
who are destructive are asked to leave. I do not need to know who they are, or why they are acting out, only that they are gone.
I think ‘clean ups’ like this are a reminder to all of us to play by the rules. I am guilty of giving overly generous scores to a person
I know to be struggling and somewhat handicapped. When I saw this announcement I realized that I was not being compassionate but
not following the rules â€Â¦cheating. I won’t do it anymore but every once in a while it is good to take stock and in this case, for me, to clean up my act. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 01:13:21 PM · #39 |
| I actually think that keeping things secretive adds distrust to a community, that's not being curious and that's not looking to shame, I mean we can't exactly flog the guity party but we can be wary of them and that's something we should have the right to do. If someone who has done this in the past contacts me in a PM, I have the right to be wary of their intentions. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 01:32:28 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Lydia, with regard to this specific incident, the transgressions were disclosed in the admin announcement. It was a matter of targeted lowball voting over the course of many months and/or several challenges, depending on the individual case. |
I don't want to read between the lines -- though we have no other option, I suppose -- but this implies there were a number of people caught up in this, though the application of "individual case" suggests they were not working with knowledge of each other. However, if members are communicating with each other about how to vote on challenges that's a big problem.
On the other hand, I couldn't care less if this about a member or members that repeatedly ding a repetitive style they dislike with low votes. If this is all this is then I see it as a matter of taste and entirely fair. But if this is a member or members that have voted specific (or all) entries low to strategically alter the outcome of challenges, it's a much more serious infraction and hits at the honor code of the voting system. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 01:37:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I actually think that keeping things secretive adds distrust to a community, that's not being curious and that's not looking to shame, I mean we can't exactly flog the guity party but we can be wary of them and that's something we should have the right to do. If someone who has done this in the past contacts me in a PM, I have the right to be wary of their intentions. |
There is no way to assuage this type of thinking, I'm afraid. I would argue that people are also entitled to privacy, that we all make stupid mistakes, especially for something as innocuous (in the grand scheme of things) as not following the rules on a photography site. SC is not in the business of unduly punishing people, and we are actually quite forgiving and lenient. The suspension is the warning to shape up. Upon their return, they are forever on the radar. There would be no reason to be "wary" of them, but knowing who they are would automatically make you "wary". How is this productive/constructive to the site? Repeat transgressions are grounds for permanent banning.
Suspension is discussed in the user agreement
"12.1 At any time and with or without cause, DPChallenge.com may immediately terminate this Agreement or any or all of rights and privileges granted to you or any of the other Registered Users hereunder, and DPChallenge.com may also suspend your use of the Website or refuse to provide you access to the Website or the services provided thereby. You may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to DPChallenge.com. In no event shall any termination, suspension or refusal to provide access by either DPChallenge.com or you act to relieve you of any obligations which have accrued under this Agreement prior to the date of such termination, suspension or refusal. "
and the service agreement
"7.1 At any time and with or without cause, DPChallenge.com may immediately terminate this Agreement or any or all of rights and privileges granted to you, and DPChallenge.com may also suspend your Membership or refuse to provide you access to the Website or the services provided thereby. You may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to DPChallenge.com. In no event shall any termination, suspension or refusal to provide access by either DPChallenge.com or you act to relieve you of any obligations which have accrued under this Agreement prior to the date of such termination, suspension or refusal. In the event of termination of this Agreement or suspension of your membership, the Subscription Fee shall not be refunded. "
As for "automatic", it should be clear that almost nothing on DPC happens "automatically", save for rollover, and other ongoing functions. Anything involving individual members involves a lot of discussion. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 02:04:09 PM · #42 |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 02:49:49 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by jagar:
... I have the right to be wary of their intentions. |
Exactly how would you be "wary" of someone, especially if their actions had nothing to do with you?
For the sake of argument, consider this hypothetical: Member A has a "personal problem" with Member B, and gives every one of Member B's recognizable entries a low vote, while giving other entries similar in subject and style "normal" votes. All other votes are also cast "normally."
This would a violation of the TOS, but unless you are Member B it would have no appreciable effect on your score, nor on how either of those participants relates to you.
This has nothing to do with "cheating" or even trying to skew the votes for personal advantage, and what is essentially a personal issue expressed through the challenges is not a suitable subject for public discussion, at least not here. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:02:27 PM · #44 |
This thread was opened as a discussion by the Bear, I never divulged any culprits because I don't know who they are and I only gave my opinion in a calm and honest manner, I referenced somone who did know who they were because he/she posted in this forum and I wanted to know how they knew, needless to say my post also got deleted. I've praised SC in the past but this is just ridiculous, I mean how can you have a discussion when honestly replying gets you deleted.
I will drop this now but quelle fiasco. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:09:02 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jagar:
... I have the right to be wary of their intentions. |
Exactly how would you be "wary" of someone, especially if their actions had nothing to do with you?
For the sake of argument, consider this hypothetical: Member A has a "personal problem" with Member B, and gives every one of Member B's recognizable entries a low vote, while giving other entries similar in subject and style "normal" votes. All other votes are also cast "normally."
This would a violation of the TOS, but unless you are Member B it would have no appreciable effect on your score, nor on how either of those participants relates to you.
This has nothing to do with "cheating" or even trying to skew the votes for personal advantage, and what is essentially a personal issue expressed through the challenges is not a suitable subject for public discussion, at least not here. |
That's hypothet Robert, remember we don't know anything about the situation, other hypotheticals are possible, if your hypothetical is true and I'm not member B then it would be of no use to me to know. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:09:36 PM · #46 |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:29:54 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For the sake of argument, consider this hypothetical: Member A has a "personal problem" with Member B, and gives every one of Member B's recognizable entries a low vote, while giving other entries similar in subject and style "normal" votes. All other votes are also cast "normally."
|
So which member would you prefer to avoid in a forum "discussion", A or B? Might be worth knowing who is a little sensitive if it could affect your score down the road.
Tim |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:35:51 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jagar:
That's hypothet Robert, remember we don't know anything about the situation, other hypotheticals are possible, if your hypothetical is true and I'm not member B then it would be of no use to me to know. |
And THAT is the heart of this discussion.
It is SCs job to decide what the situation is, and act accordingly. We're asking if, in the hypothetical scenario described, it would be appropriate for a member to be "outed" by SC. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:40:18 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
I think the people that we often refer to as trolls, who vote consistently low (maybe 1thru 3) regardless of the challenge really harm this site. |
I can'tt say that I agree with the premise that they hurt this site.
It stands to reason that they might offend the individual and hurt their feelings, but that is far cry from being something that hurts the site.
There are individuals on this site that I honestly do not agree with on many subject matters, whose tastes in what is a good image and/or artful is diametrically opposed to mine and who vote consistently what most would consist as being under par.
The fundamental issues to be considered is that they are voting consistently, in accordance with their beliefs, tastes, convictions and that they view all genres similarly.
Surely we are not so shallow as to attempt to restrict personal tastes.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:46:50 PM · #50 |
I cannot think that this is all that important - I mean the low vendetta (or the high sycophantic?) voting. I mean statistically (and it is rare that I credit statistics) how significant could the percentage of possible miscreants be?
Our voting has always been anonymous, so it seems that "outing" someone for possible anomalies might infringe on/imperil that policy/privilege. |
|
