| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2010 02:58:07 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The uproar is not happening because people want Enzo to have special treatment |
Everyone, including Bear probably knows this, but just to clarify ... my comments weren't to suggest that anyone has ever gotten special treatment, but rather that the rules are NEVER going to be perfectly written for each and every situation that may arise. To be honest, I'm surprised that Enzo didn't already know the in's and out's of this rule (whether worded correctly or not) simply because he has been here for a long time and this exact discussion has been had several times.
I think rewriting the rules every month is going to make things worse, not better. |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 03:10:07 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision. |
Not necessarily. I got DQ'd for a Minimal Editing rule that I helped write! I had plenty of experience and there was nothing wrong with the wording of the rule or the SC decision. I just spaced.
Each of the DQ examples I posted in this thread was taken by a photographer that had been entering DPC challenges for years, yet there was no uproar over those. Much of the issue here seems to have come from an inconsistent precedent where we allowed the "spirit of the challenge" to override the letter of the rules. While we could offer an expanded description of many rules for clarity, the rules are intimidating enough without making them even longer IMO (I've suggested hyperlinks with examples). However we still get experienced members questioning the legality of obvious artwork despite highlighting, "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork..." with an underline, so no amount of explanation is likely to satisfy everyone.
One might try to claim that there's no rule to prohibit desaturation of part of an object, but it's a weak argument given the prohibition on creating new shapes. There was no triangular shape on the petal above the chalk in the original, and the rules clearly state that you cannot create new shapes with filters, effects, dodge & burn, or any other tool. That said, we had already favored adding a clarification to the saturation rule back in April of last year, but never followed through on it. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 03:10:35 PM · #103 |
| I think the SC should come up with some clear examples that illustrate the rules. Some people are a lot more visual and I think it would really help clarify what is illegal. |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 03:35:18 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by dtallakson:
I think the SC should come up with some clear examples that illustrate the rules. Some people are a lot more visual and I think it would really help clarify what is illegal. |
I like that idea. Some clickable thumbnails to go with the rules bullet points? |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 05:14:22 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Perhaps, but read through this posting carefully.
I have been one of the more vocal ones here and I actually had to look back to see who the photo was by.
The majority of the replies here have not been that the rule was unfair or it should be rewritten, but there needs to be a clarification of the expectation of the rule.
There is a fundamental problem with the challenges when a rule like this requires prior knowledge to understand it, outside of the "You May" and "You May Nots".
How would that rule be interpreted by a new member to the site and what impression would a DQ leave on a new member?
Honestly, its good to have uproar when a rule is not clear, its the only way to make the site better. Now, its up to the SC to make it better now that the members have expressed their viewpoint.
ETA: If a well known member gets a DQ then people tend to look closely at it, because someone with experience here should know what is legal and what is not. So, when they do get a DQ, there must be something really wrong or problematic by the SC decision.
Originally posted by hopper:
every single time a well known member gets a DQ, there's an uproar about whatever rule was broken
every ... single ... time
So let's go ahead and rewrite the rules every week ... and in the year 2050, they'll be perfect and the SC can be reduced to one person.
(no offense intended to Enzo whatsoever, but the second I saw the image pop up on the screen I said out loud, "that's not legal")
... bracing for the blast of disagreement ... |
|
PGerst,
Even though I am totally on your side of this argument and totally agree with your arguments, I must tell you you are wasting your breath. The more you argue, the higher up the 'blacklist' you go. Some people get dq'd for these things, some do not. It's always a matter of how the rule is interpreted by whom. Might as well drop it now because you will not win. I have been down this road before. Take it from someone with previous experience and let it go. SC makes the final decision on these things, and nothing you can do or say is going to change it, as they have already looked it over for a few days and made their decision.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2010 05:33:41 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
The more you argue, the higher up the 'blacklist' you go. Some people get dq'd for these things, some do not. It's always a matter of how the rule is interpreted by whom. Might as well drop it now because you will not win. I have been down this road before. Take it from someone with previous experience and let it go. SC makes the final decision on these things, and nothing you can do or say is going to change it, as they have already looked it over for a few days and made their decision. |
A bizarre statement coming from someone who's had an SC decision reversed. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 05:42:37 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Even though I am totally on your side of this argument and totally agree with your arguments, I must tell you you are wasting your breath. The more you argue, the higher up the 'blacklist' you go. |
I am rather intrigued by this statement. You of course have evidence to support this claim...right?
Ray |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 05:44:25 PM · #108 |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 06:06:20 PM · #109 |
Where's your photographic integrity, Ken? You KNOW we only fly those things at night! |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 06:13:29 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Where's your photographic integrity, Ken? You KNOW we only fly those things at night! |
He did not want to get outside the editing rules so he was not able to change day into night! |
|
|
|
10/27/2010 08:32:28 PM · #111 |
I'm not arguing to get it reversed but to make a distinct point that the rules need to be clarified for future participants.
Originally posted by rugman1969:
PGerst,
Even though I am totally on your side of this argument and totally agree with your arguments, I must tell you you are wasting your breath. The more you argue, the higher up the 'blacklist' you go. Some people get dq'd for these things, some do not. It's always a matter of how the rule is interpreted by whom. Might as well drop it now because you will not win. I have been down this road before. Take it from someone with previous experience and let it go. SC makes the final decision on these things, and nothing you can do or say is going to change it, as they have already looked it over for a few days and made their decision. |
|
|
|
|
10/28/2010 12:27:27 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Where's your photographic integrity, Ken? You KNOW we only fly those things at night! |
He did not want to get outside the editing rules so he was not able to change day into night! |
Why not, it worked and got validated in the last 4:00-5:00am challenge.
 |
|
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: 08/05/2025 05:07:38 PM EDT.
