| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2015 11:08:10 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
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? |
good question |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 12:00:48 PM · #152 |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 12:01:41 PM · #153 |
It sounds to me that a person has been banned for giving a recognizable image a certain score (1 or 10) despite not voting the same on other similar images. How is that cheating? They have not gotten information from outside, they just recognize the work. That is not the voters fault that the work is recognizable. If the voter wants to use their vote to give that photographer a 1 or a 10 every time how is that the business of anyone else. Many voters give protest votes of 1 to blurry or DNMC every time they see them. I know since I am the recipient of the 1 votes but that is that voters right. I am sure many people recognize their friends work and give it a 10, every time. I believe it should be the voters decision on how they choose to use their vote. The fact that some votes get used as protest votes or for "nepotism" or for many other reasons other than the image itself can't be controlled for. Let the voters use their vote as they see fit and hope the majority are voting on the image only. To tell voters how they can or can't vote on certain images is a very slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 12:07:43 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
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. |
No, we want ALL members to be able to come back peacefully after suspensions and coexist happily ever after.
Originally posted by Elaine:
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? |
It was conceivable that this thread would have exposed a huge groundswell supporting public exposure of all "wrongdoers", in which case we might have felt a need to modify our policy in that regard. That hasn't happened, though. Additionally, this thread has allowed both "sides" of the equation to air it out a bit, so hopefully everyone understands there IS a reason for the policy even if they don't agree with it. Isn't that how it's supposed to go? |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 12:13:06 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by 2mccs:
It sounds to me that a person has been banned for giving a recognizable image a certain score (1 or 10) despite not voting the same on other similar images. How is that cheating? They have not gotten information from outside, they just recognize the work. That is not the voters fault that the work is recognizable. If the voter wants to use their vote to give that photographer a 1 or a 10 every time how is that the business of anyone else. Many voters give protest votes of 1 to blurry or DNMC every time they see them. I know since I am the recipient of the 1 votes but that is that voters right. I am sure many people recognize their friends work and give it a 10, every time. I believe it should be the voters decision on how they choose to use their vote. The fact that some votes get used as protest votes or for "nepotism" or for many other reasons other than the image itself can't be controlled for. Let the voters use their vote as they see fit and hope the majority are voting on the image only. To tell voters how they can or can't vote on certain images is a very slippery slope. |
1. Nobody's been banned, it's a suspension.
2. There would be no suspension if the party in question consistently voted low on all similar works.
3. People HAVE been suspended for always giving 10's to a specific member's work. It's called "friend voting".
4. We have tools to analyze this stuff, and we analyze it to death. We always err on the side of leniency when drawing conclusions. Only the most obvious examples of bias or manipulation result in suspensions.
Message edited by author 2015-03-02 12:13:33. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 12:52:54 PM · #156 |
Personally, I think it took a great deal of decency and transparency to roll with this thread, period. As Robert pointed out:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It was conceivable that this thread would have exposed a huge groundswell supporting public exposure of all "wrongdoers", in which case we might have felt a need to modify our policy in that regard. That hasn't happened, though. Additionally, this thread has allowed both "sides" of the equation to air it out a bit, so hopefully everyone understands there IS a reason for the policy even if they don't agree with it. Isn't that how it's supposed to go? |
Robert, Johanna, and Paul have all been 'round here long enough that they know which way the parade is going. I'm pretty sure they knew how this would shake down.
Point is......They *DID* put it out there to us, seeking our opinions and reactions, knowing that they were placing themselves in the barrel.
I've been here a couple weeks, and I learned some, and I am delighted both with the way this was handled, and that the three newest SC members were willing to step up to field the feedback.
Well done, guys!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 01:46:48 PM · #157 |
Lots of great points here already, i'll simply add my $0.02:
While minor offenses here (DQ on challenge) are publicly visible, it is obvious to many that view the image upfront as to what was done and in the VAST Majority of cases, is not intending to "cheat".
We are a site about photography, we generally are trying to be artistic, and taking artistic liberties with our editing. Does that skate on the line of the rules? Frequently (in terms of # of total submissions, not per user). Is it wrong to skate on that line? Not if you are knowingly staying within the boundaries and not trying to cheat, but merely doing everything you are allowed to do.
In the event that you put your toe over the line and get caught, it's a warning for others to be careful when you are on the line (or to even know where the line is for new members).
If someone is intentionally breaking the rules, and they are outed, there WILL be public backlash. They are knowingly trying to cheat the rest of the site users/members who are operating within the rules, in good faith.
If someone is skating on the line, voting based on artistic value To Them (aka the PH group enjoying the less "technically perfect"/"artistic/blurry" entries, then they are voting the entire series of entries accordingly. Do they sometimes recognize particular members? Definitely. Would they vote that way for others who happen to submit an entry in that style? Yes - it's happened to me, and many others, and has been documented in the comments of the images.
This is skating the line, for sure, but it is not breaking the rules. They are using the established method of voting (1-10 without displaying names of individuals, nor using back-channel information obtainable during voting to find out who submitted an image). Yes, it's obtainable, I tried it with my own entry at one point and was able to track it back to myself.
If you can find evidence of these individuals using this information on each entry (or specific entries per challenge regularly) to determine whose image they are seeing before or after casting votes, then that sort of intrusion should Definitely be made public.
Outing people and penalizing them for voting how they feel, that's going to drive membership into the ground and dpc will never recover from it. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 01:57:20 PM · #158 |
| I'm trying to remember, we only win virtual ribbons, correct? |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 03:15:24 PM · #159 |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 04:41:05 PM · #160 |
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 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 |
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:34:12 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society. |
They're also the equivalent of Mom when she gets pissed at you......lighten up!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:38:58 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society. |
They're also the equivalent of Mom when she gets pissed at you......lighten up! |
Not really.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:41:24 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society. |
SC is more akin to nuclear regulators appointed as representatives to prevent meltdowns and privately ensure compliance among members sensitive to security and privacy. There is no promise or expectation of public disclosure for every action and, barring an event that actually affects others, all that matters is that the job gets done. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:47:47 PM · #164 |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:49:07 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Unless you reject the premise that DPC is a society, albeit a wholly online one, the the SC is most equivalent in function to the police and judicial system in regular society. |
SC is more akin to nuclear regulators appointed as representatives to prevent meltdowns and privately ensure compliance among members sensitive to security and privacy. There is no promise or expectation of public disclosure for every action and, barring an event that actually affects others, all that matters is that the job gets done. |
I don't know... I've seen a lot of meltdowns on here... :D |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 05:58:14 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
If someone is intentionally breaking the rules, and they are outed, there WILL be public backlash. They are knowingly trying to cheat the rest of the site users/members who are operating within the rules, in good faith. |
I question why this is a bad thing. The key word being intentionally. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:12:27 PM · #167 |
The bottom line is that we have been tasked with trying to establish a balance between transparency and privacy.
An absolute on either end is undesirable. Absolute privacy means nobody knows what anyone else is doing, including anything SC does behinds the scenes. Absolute transparency goes both ways, meaning we would need access to PMs to ensure that everyone is playing fairly. In the event we started naming names, the latter would be a requirement, since a lot of harassment and witch-burning happens via PMs.
I'd rather we lean more towards privacy than transparency. And I think that at DPC we've managed to strike the right balance most of the time. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:21:13 PM · #168 |
| Although denied (and I am not saying I disbelieve the denial), much of this thread seems to have a tone of protection because the members involved are prominent, active members held in high regard. I'm not sure we need full disclosure, and should the decision be to protect people's privacy I am fine with that. But I'm not sure I agree that people's regard needs to be protected when intentionally breaking a rule. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:27:16 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Now I'm affraid to vote lower than a 3 and higher than a 7. ;) |
Thats my territory!!!! |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:34:27 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Although denied (and I am not saying I disbelieve the denial), much of this thread seems to have a tone of protection because the members involved are prominent, active members held in high regard. |
That's something you're reading into it that has no basis in fact and hasn't even been *implied* by any SC as far as I can see. I'm serious about this; EVERYONE's important to us. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:49:43 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Although denied (and I am not saying I disbelieve the denial), much of this thread seems to have a tone of protection because the members involved are prominent, active members held in high regard. I'm not sure we need full disclosure, and should the decision be to protect people's privacy I am fine with that. But I'm not sure I agree that people's regard needs to be protected when intentionally breaking a rule. |
It is possible that your inferences are based on a comment I made near the beginning:
"You have NO idea who or why someone violates TOS"
What I meant by that is that any one of us is capable of violating TOS, depending on circumstances. And NO one is exempt from suspension or a permanent ban, not even SC. Trying to guess who it is based on online personalities is a highly inaccurate way to determine real life behavior.
Every member is an "important" member. Some are just more "active" than others. As Robert has said, you are reading way more into this and speculating on nothing more than on your imagination. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 06:55:22 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
I'm sure most of us remember the last debacle and the resulting apology. If  posthumous had not been able to defend himself publicly in the forum, he, and many of the rest of us, would not be here today. |
SC didn't identify anyone when that action was taken either, and any reconsideration results from tickets and private discussions with the parties involved, NOT from forum protests rife with false assumptions. There have been countless occasions where the SC is vilified in the forums over something that full disclosure would have ended immediately, but doing so would have likely shamed those people into quitting the site. From the most respected member to the worst troll, the goal is always to correct the problem and move on in good faith, and that's much harder to do after your dirty laundry has been put on display. Very few infractions actually affect the members at large, so frankly it's none of their business and we only announce reprimands as a reminder that the rules are taken seriously. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:03:29 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Although denied (and I am not saying I disbelieve the denial), much of this thread seems to have a tone of protection because the members involved are prominent, active members held in high regard. I'm not sure we need full disclosure, and should the decision be to protect people's privacy I am fine with that. But I'm not sure I agree that people's regard needs to be protected when intentionally breaking a rule. |
I have followed the entire thread and did not get this idea.
Early on  tanguera said, "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."
And  Paul said, "Every member is valuable. No one is receiving any special consideration. Johanna was talking generally - hence the 'most folks' preface."
And later added, "We would like the members to return, this isn't because they are due any special treatment (that wouldn't apply to anyone), it's simply because like all our members they offer up photos and comments and forum postings and (for better or for worse) votes! That's what this community is about - we need you people! I think it would be harder for them to return if they had been named."
And  Bear_Music said, "No, we want ALL members to be able to come back peacefully after suspensions and coexist happily ever after.
Underscores are MINE. To me, nothing any SC member has said implies in any way that the suspended members in this particular case are any more "special" than any other member - quite the contrary.
But then, there have been a lot of other assertions made along the way that I thought were, shall we say, misinterpretations of something someone else said.
ETA: I was putting this together while Bear_Music, tanguera, and  scalvert were responding. Sorry for butting in.
Message edited by author 2015-03-02 19:06:39. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:08:37 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by tnun:
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. |
I like to listen to myself. |
|
|
|
03/02/2015 07:13:03 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by tnun:
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. |
I like to listen to myself. |
You keep wise council. |
|
