| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2015 11:01:45 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your analogy is absolutely incorrect. The banks have no authority to punish. |
I think the average fee for overdrawing ones checking account is about $35 ... maybe that's "nothing" to you but to me it represents a significant "punishment" for a relatively trivial offense. |
Especially when there's money sitting in your savings account that they could have easily taken, and you've told them to! *shakes fist* |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 11:15:52 PM · #127 |
Being on SC has to be torturous when dealing with all of our divisions.
It feels like SC is really functioning and that they have our backs. For several years
it did not feel that way. Thanks Robert, Paul and Johanna for putting the time and care
into this. It really is inspirational. Maybe we̢۪ll all decide to put some time into voting and commenting
and get this show back on track.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2015 11:43:40 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Being on SC has to be torturous when dealing with all of our divisions.
It feels like SC is really functioning and that they have our backs. For several years
it did not feel that way. Thanks Robert, Paul and Johanna for putting the time and care
into this. It really is inspirational. Maybe we̢۪ll all decide to put some time into voting and commenting
and get this show back on track. |
Thank you, Jane, but we're just the newcomers. And apparently, also the most vocal... the rest if SC toils (mostly) quietly in the background :) |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 11:56:02 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
So, sorry Spiffy but that's why I haven't jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and gone for a Slippy challenge. In the end the guy was a huge cheat. I don't have anything to do with people like that, in real life or online.
So....SC? Answers? |
That's not correct. As far as I know he had only ONE duplicate account, "Strikeslip2" and he created it and alerted us to it so that we would HAVE to ban him. All the issues with Slippy were social issues, and there was a raft of them for a LONG time. I'm not aware that Slippy was ever accused of cheating, vote manipulation, or the like, and I've done a fair amount of research on this. I could be wrong, but...
Incidentally, the user "spiffy" you referred to in your OP has nothing to do with Strikeslip, so I'm not sure where you get that from...
ETA: Oh, I see, you're talking to Yo_Spiff there... |
And this is exactly why names shouldn't be named. People don't remember things accurately, and now Slippy has been indicted for a variety of things he never did, despite snaffle's certainty of the matter.
Also, I'm disappointed nobody laughed at my spambot/flagpole reference. I guess no-one remembers how that whole thing went down anymore... |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 11:57:41 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Being on SC has to be torturous when dealing with all of our divisions.
It feels like SC is really functioning and that they have our backs. For several years
it did not feel that way. Thanks Robert, Paul and Johanna for putting the time and care
into this. It really is inspirational. Maybe we̢۪ll all decide to put some time into voting and commenting
and get this show back on track. |
Thank you, Jane, but we're just the newcomers. And apparently, also the most vocal... the rest if SC toils (mostly) quietly in the background :) |
You two will probably quickly figure out that there's a reason why... Of course, I personally am appreciative of the efforts at transparency and disclosure. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 02:07:02 AM · #131 |
Thanks for having this debate, it's always intresting to see other peoples points of view. Although I still think that the main victim should at least know who attacked him, I'm happy in the knowledge that SC is looking out for us all.
Well done. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 02:13:39 AM · #132 |
If only all this effort passion and text went into comments :)
I better put my freshly sharpened pitch fork away :) |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 03:07:24 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. |
Agreed. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 03:52:41 AM · #134 |
| Now that I have finally finished reading all the posts in this thread, I'll add to my previous comment that I think SC handled these two instances well. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:00:03 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your analogy is absolutely incorrect. The banks have no authority to punish. |
I think the average fee for overdrawing ones checking account is about $35 ... maybe that's "nothing" to you but to me it represents a significant "punishment" for a relatively trivial offense. |
They cannot put someone in jail or otherwise remove them from society, temporarily or permanently.
To be clear, I don't think every suspension should require a full disclosure from the SC. I think the SC should tell the whole tale of those people who earn lifetime bans.
Message edited by author 2015-03-02 08:51:50. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:03:13 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
So, sorry Spiffy but that's why I haven't jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and gone for a Slippy challenge. In the end the guy was a huge cheat. I don't have anything to do with people like that, in real life or online.
So....SC? Answers? |
That's not correct. As far as I know he had only ONE duplicate account, "Strikeslip2" and he created it and alerted us to it so that we would HAVE to ban him. All the issues with Slippy were social issues, and there was a raft of them for a LONG time. I'm not aware that Slippy was ever accused of cheating, vote manipulation, or the like, and I've done a fair amount of research on this. I could be wrong, but...
Incidentally, the user "spiffy" you referred to in your OP has nothing to do with Strikeslip, so I'm not sure where you get that from...
ETA: Oh, I see, you're talking to Yo_Spiff there... |
And this is exactly why names shouldn't be named. People don't remember things accurately, and now Slippy has been indicted for a variety of things he never did, despite snaffle's certainty of the matter.
Also, I'm disappointed nobody laughed at my spambot/flagpole reference. I guess no-one remembers how that whole thing went down anymore... |
A perfect example of why outing peeps with no come back is a dangerous thing.
If you wish to go witch hunting then the absolute best advice I can give you is........
Make sure you are burning the right witch! And without meaningful input.... You better be freaking sure!
I've been here for awhile..... Rarely comment these days....no fun any more....too much pc...
I'm seriously thinking of asking for the user name... 'Rose' ....... That's truly my middle name.... 😎
If you've been here for awhile, you may laugh, if it's longer you will comment. ...
And I don't care! HEY SC! May. I please have the user name 'Rose' ?
Be nice to Slippy! ... Oh that's right he's no longer here. Aw shoot, he didn't kill anyone either....he may have been pc incorrect, just occasionally....
Art and Slippy...nio longer here.. No fun!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:40:23 AM · #137 |
Like everyone else I came here hoping to compete on a level playing field and have fun learning new techniques etc.
But I do recall being very dismayed that someone who was so popular on the site, and whose twisted humour often did make me LOL in public, was booted for - as I recall it, I do not have that thread here in front of me - because SC said he had been banned for having 4 ghost accounts. I could easily be wrong, it's been how long now, two years or more?
When I reffed  Spiffy re the current Slippy discussion, it's only because he wants an In the Style of Strikeslip challenge. I'm not slagging him.
I'm not perfect. Nobody is. And no, I am not slagging  Nobody either. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 08:19:56 AM · #138 |
Slippy opened a secound account in order to get himself banned for life after he threatened a robot.
He felt he was being harassed by GeneralE.
I'll try to post the link to the thread.
Slippy link
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:00:55 AM · #139 |
I don't get a chance to read the forums all the often anymore, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone who violates the TOS should have their sexual orientation revealed. You people are just weird.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:05:37 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
... Here on DPC the SC are, among other things acting as law enforcement along with judge, jury and executioner. The SC can enact the harshest penalty allowed, banning. They can excommunicate a member from the society of DPC without any transparency in the process. Now if the bank could exact the ultimo penalty, you might be onto something. |
If you honestly believe that the SC duties are akin to those of people involved in law enforcement, then that would lead me to believe that your interpretation of the law is questiionable .
Theirs is an administrative function at best and anyone familiar with privately owned entities and their ability to render decisions will quickly realize that in such instances there exists no legal requirement remotely close to those you are advocating.
You may not like it, but as they say in legal parlance, TOUGH NOUGGIES. :o)
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-03-02 10:15:37. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:09:54 AM · #141 |
| If we are talking about targeted voting being the cause of suspension, and I think we are, then this raises the old chestnut of anonymity. If certain members were being targeted then how did those who were breaking the rules identify their targets? Is the anonymous posting rule being broken as well and if so how were they doing it and are our posts being protected well enough? |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:15:18 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
... Here on DPC the SC are, among other things acting as law enforcement along with judge, jury and executioner. The SC can enact the harshest penalty allowed, banning. They can excommunicate a member from the society of DPC without any transparency in the process. Now if the bank could exact the ultimo penalty, you might be onto something. |
If you honestly believe that the SC duties are akin to those of people involved in law enforcement, then that would lead me to believe that your knowledge of the law is seriously lacking.
Theirs is an administrative function at best and anyone familiar with privately owned entities and their ability to render decisions will quickly realize that in such instances there exists no legal requirement remotely close to those you are advocating.
You may not like it, but as they say in legal parlance, TOUGH NOUGGIES. :o)
Ray |
Seems the SC thinks it's akin to police work as well.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LN13:
This seems random.
or not. |
In a sense, all "police work" is random. We see signs of something suspicious, we investigate, we take action if necessary. But we're always looking, anyway :-) |
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:17:12 AM · #143 |
So, "we" want these two members to come back because they participate. I am assuming "we" want them held in high esteem because they are long-time members. To me, this sounds like favoritism. Can't name them because others might not hold them in such high regard knowing they cheated.
This thread was meant to be a discussion. I would say the decision not to name those who are suspended was already made and this thread was not going to change that decision. So what was the real purpose of this? |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:21:18 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Like everyone else I came here hoping to compete on a level playing field and have fun learning new techniques etc.
But I do recall being very dismayed that someone who was so popular on the site, and whose twisted humour often did make me LOL in public, was booted for - as I recall it, I do not have that thread here in front of me - because SC said he had been banned for having 4 ghost accounts. I could easily be wrong, it's been how long now, two years or more?
When I reffed Spiffy re the current Slippy discussion, it's only because he wants an In the Style of Strikeslip challenge. I'm not slagging him.
I'm not perfect. Nobody is. And no, I am not slagging Nobody either. |
What a stupid thing to do, accusing a former member of cheating, when you obviously cannot recall what happened and never had an understanding of what happened in the first place. Incredibly poor form. |
I'm guessing rule #11 wasn't broken because Slippy is no longer a member. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:44:13 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by Mond:
If we are talking about targeted voting being the cause of suspension, and I think we are, then this raises the old chestnut of anonymity. If certain members were being targeted then how did those who were breaking the rules identify their targets? Is the anonymous posting rule being broken as well and if so how were they doing it and are our posts being protected well enough? |
some styles are very easily recognized.
That said, If you recognize someones image and dont like their style and decide to vote them a 1 how is that different than if you recognize the photographer and their image a 10? does the SC look out for that sort of behavior too, giving out consistent 10's?
Message edited by author 2015-03-02 10:46:27. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:47:46 AM · #146 |
I think the StrikeSlip situation proves the SC's case about not naming names.
The mere fact that this discussion was started by a SC member speaks quite clearly and forcefully about the SC's openness and commitment to the well-being of the site, and their transparency.
To me, it is about redemption. If the goal is to have the offender rejoin the community, then keeping their identify confidential is helpful to that goal. If the determination has been made that the offender should not rejoin the community, that's a different story. At the same time, we need to be aware that there are real people behind the screen names, and I doubt very many here would be pleased to learn that a permanent, public ban from dpc was the final straw that pushed a depressed person to suicide. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but my point is that dpc is for fun, but real life is real life and sometimes it is not the easiest to clearly separate the two emotionally.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:49:38 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by Mike:
That said, If you recognize someones image and dont like their style and decide to vote them a 1 how is that different than if you recognize the photographer and their image a 10? does the SC look out for that sort of behavior too, giving out consistent 10's? |
Is someone consistently giving out 10's? I think I may be missing out on something... |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:53:07 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Like everyone else I came here hoping to compete on a level playing field and have fun learning new techniques etc.
But I do recall being very dismayed that someone who was so popular on the site, and whose twisted humour often did make me LOL in public, was booted for - as I recall it, I do not have that thread here in front of me - because SC said he had been banned for having 4 ghost accounts. I could easily be wrong, it's been how long now, two years or more?
When I reffed Spiffy re the current Slippy discussion, it's only because he wants an In the Style of Strikeslip challenge. I'm not slagging him.
I'm not perfect. Nobody is. And no, I am not slagging Nobody either. |
What a stupid thing to do, accusing a former member of cheating, when you obviously cannot recall what happened and never had an understanding of what happened in the first place. Incredibly poor form. |
Hey, she admitted the mistake, no need to jump on a bandwagon here. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:54:03 AM · #149 |
Now we're all just bickering. And about stuff that is getting off topic. Cut it out.
Regarding the question of anonymity and how we know the identity of a photographer: there are many ways. The most obvious is that it's a selfie. But it could be through their choice of subject, location, content, processing, etc., etc. Some have a more recognizable style than others. If you've been here long enough it's not that hard to tell in some cases.
However, if there is any doubt, don't assume. And if you've seen the image before, or helped choose it, play it safe and don't vote on it. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 10:57:50 AM · #150 |
| Now I'm affraid to vote lower than a 3 and higher than a 7. ;) |
|
