| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2015 04:12:36 PM · #51 |
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. |
If this is even close to what actually happened why couldn't this be in the opening post?
The more info you give the members the better decisions they can make.
At one point in this thread it sounded like 10 people PMing each other to pile on one person.
It would help if we knew exactly what happened.
Message edited by author 2015-03-03 08:06:51. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:13:30 PM · #52 |
| It is SC job to make decisions, it is not SC job to withhold important information about the site from other adult paying members, it's condescending and rather irritating. In the future when this happens it might be better if you just didn't mention it. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:34:17 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by jagar:
It is SC job to make decisions, it is not SC job to withhold important information about the site from other adult paying members, it's condescending and rather irritating. In the future when this happens it might be better if you just didn't mention it. |
Are you suggesting that we "make people disappear" without offering any explanation at all? |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:38:40 PM · #54 |
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. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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. |
That's the thing. The statement "What most would consider as being under par." is specious.
As long as any and all voters vote consistently, their opinions of "Voting on par" are irrelevant, and hold no credence in the grand scheme.
Selectively voting some entries differently for personal gain, or to try to torpedo someone else is a different matter.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:41:54 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by jagar:
It is SC job to make decisions, it is not SC job to withhold important information about the site from other adult paying members, it's condescending and rather irritating. In the future when this happens it might be better if you just didn't mention it. |
Are you suggesting that we "make people disappear" without offering any explanation at all? |
If you make them disappear then there would be no issue about informing us of the who and what and why. You said they were coming back, I feel if that's the case then we have a right to know, if you withhold that info then why let us know in the first place. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:50:06 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by jagar:
It is SC job to make decisions, it is not SC job to withhold important information about the site from other adult paying members, it's condescending and rather irritating. In the future when this happens it might be better if you just didn't mention it. |
Are you suggesting that we "make people disappear" without offering any explanation at all? |
If you make them disappear then there would be no issue about informing us of the who and what and why. You said they were coming back, I feel if that's the case then we have a right to know, if you withhold that info then why let us know in the first place. |
I disagree completely.
I know people have "disappeared" in the past without any public notice. How does that serve as any sort of deterrent? I think it's much better that people know that things are noticed and taken care of. The "who" would be an interesting, gossipy thing to know, but unimportant. The fact that it was done and will be done in the future is important to the health of the site, imo. I think it helps morale.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:51:42 PM · #57 |
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. |
It makes a much bigger difference now that there are fewer votes. When there were 200+ votes per challenge, it was a drop in the bucket. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 05:00:14 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think it's much better that people know that things are noticed and taken care of. The "who" would be an interesting, gossipy thing to know, but unimportant. The fact that it was done and will be done in the future is important to the health of the site, imo. I think it helps morale. |
That's our basic thinking. It would be a lot easier for us not to mention any of this at all, just DO it: but then there's no awareness on the part of the membership that SC is on top of things and looking out for these sorts of problems. But at the same time it seems unnecessarily harsh to call out miscreants by name and subject them to public exposure. Should they REPEAT the behavior, you can be sure they will be shown the door promptly, and at THAT point they would most likely be named (although I can't speak for the rest of SC on that latter point). |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 05:10:00 PM · #59 |
To know or not to know is the question,
I have belonged and owned a lot of online groups.. I know that with each group we have our own "admin" groups which is only privy to us admins.. there we discuss issues that arise and deal with the trouble makers and take action then we also warn the members not to do or to do certain things. I am sure this is no different here.. in only a few instances it was clearly that those offenders had to be mentioned because they were greiving the rest of the members and causing really bad havock. To give them ease of mind, then it was mentioned publically. The other ones we ban/suspend, is not even mentioned at all.
Just acknowledging that there was a voting issue which was TOS and the fact that the SC took care of it for being a member, that is all I would need to know. Otherwise, it will be just gossip like Wendy said. Flogging the ones that have offended and doing the show and tell and letting us know whom it was..that won't make us a better person and there is nothing to gain by doing that. Would it feel great to give them a peice of our minds and blow them up for being bad, sure it could gives us that gratifying revenge type of feeling. Its not needed nor will that drama be welcomed by many, and honestly, that is not why I come here, nor would I care to see it.
To mention and say anything about certain issues but to serve "warnings" to other members is fine as well. Just saying and telling us that this issue happened, it was dealt, I know in the back of my mind SC is doing their job and it will be kept in the back of my mind to keep myself in check when it comes to those issues.
As far the whome goes, it will soon be noticed when they don't come around.. knowing they will come back, well, fine let them, but knowing also from SC they will be watched with every voting challenge and then also knowing that this issue is not taking lightly and its a serious offence and it will be dealt with swiftly is a great thing.
I am just glad that it was noticed and taken care of and I am sure it was not easy on their end.
Message edited by author 2015-02-28 17:23:07. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 05:58:07 PM · #60 |
There is more gossip now then when it first posted. We don't know for sure what happened. It's like asking people if they should throw a person in jail for breaking the law. What law? How bad? He was speeding. Ok don't throw him in jail. He was doing 150 mph. Ok lock him up for the night.
If the SC isn't comfortable with giving the details of what happened they we can't make a decision
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 08:00:34 PM · #61 |
I knew this would come up again...
Message edited by author 2015-02-28 20:52:34. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 08:31:19 PM · #62 |
The majority of us are adults. We have agreed to abide by the TOS. Why should someone who deliberately breaks one of the rules be protected? Naming would do away with the gossip and guessing when an infraction becomes known. No more page after page of wondering if it is this person or that person. It's stated, dealt with, and we move on. Does someone who deliberately, knowingly cheated to the point of suspension deserve our high esteem? Just some things to think about.
(And there would be no more "I knew this would come up again, I have a feeling I know who it is But I'm keeping that to myself" posts. Would have quoted this, but decided it was relevant after I had everything else typed.) |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 08:38:55 PM · #63 |
It seems I've been missing some action here. :D I should check in more often I guess, then I'd know what the heck is happening.
I didn't read the whole thread, but from the OP I'd say if it's only between two members, let it stay between them. But I would think the person who was on the receiving end should know who was targeting them. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 09:04:30 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
The majority of us are adults. We have agreed to abide by the TOS. Why should someone who deliberately breaks one of the rules be protected? Naming would do away with the gossip and guessing when an infraction becomes known. No more page after page of wondering if it is this person or that person. It's stated, dealt with, and we move on. Does someone who deliberately, knowingly cheated to the point of suspension deserve our high esteem? Just some things to think about.
(And there would be no more "I knew this would come up again, I have a feeling I know who it is But I'm keeping that to myself" posts. Would have quoted this, but decided it was relevant after I had everything else typed.) |
 Elaine said it best. |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 09:25:00 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by nygold:
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? |
I don't. I've used the "gender neutral when there's unknown gender" approach. :D
|
|
|
|
03/01/2015 12:53:21 AM · #66 |
I live in a small town and our local paper publishes the police log once a week. They don't name the parties involved, but do highlight the time and place of issues that required police intervention. If it is a small disagreement between parties, that is the end of the public discussion. If it is a more significant crime the paper will follow up with additional details and an article written by a journalist. Both levels of reporting are useful, but most people want to know details about the more significant crime so they can 1) Beware of criminal activity in their neighborhood, 2) Know that the police are responding and dealing with significant crime.
Obviously voting irregularities on DPC don't equate with burglaries or assaults in your home town, but isn't it useful to know that an irregularity has been identified and dealt with by the site council? It builds confidence within our community that people are looking out for the cheats and will deal with them. Knowing names is less relevant than knowing a problem was discovered and dealt with. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 03:30:13 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Elaine:
The majority of us are adults. We have agreed to abide by the TOS. Why should someone who deliberately breaks one of the rules be protected? Naming would do away with the gossip and guessing when an infraction becomes known. No more page after page of wondering if it is this person or that person. It's stated, dealt with, and we move on. Does someone who deliberately, knowingly cheated to the point of suspension deserve our high esteem? Just some things to think about.
(And there would be no more "I knew this would come up again, I have a feeling I know who it is But I'm keeping that to myself" posts. Would have quoted this, but decided it was relevant after I had everything else typed.) |
Elaine said it best. |
She did. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 03:39:44 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
It seems I've been missing some action here. :D I should check in more often I guess, then I'd know what the heck is happening.
I didn't read the whole thread, but from the OP I'd say if it's only between two members, let it stay between them. But I would think the person who was on the receiving end should know who was targeting them. |
If it was only two members voting each other high then yes let it stay between them, it is more probable though that low votes were cast, in that case we are all victims and as such we have every right to know the details, withholding them undermines any fairness SC thinks they have.
If there were no other victims except the culprits then let us know, if we were all victims then details should be had, how could it be fair otherwise. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 03:52:53 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by CBalck:
I live in a small town and our local paper publishes the police log once a week. They don't name the parties involved, but do highlight the time and place of issues that required police intervention. If it is a small disagreement between parties, that is the end of the public discussion. If it is a more significant crime the paper will follow up with additional details and an article written by a journalist. Both levels of reporting are useful, but most people want to know details about the more significant crime so they can 1) Beware of criminal activity in their neighborhood, 2) Know that the police are responding and dealing with significant crime.
Obviously voting irregularities on DPC don't equate with burglaries or assaults in your home town, but isn't it useful to know that an irregularity has been identified and dealt with by the site council? It builds confidence within our community that people are looking out for the cheats and will deal with them. Knowing names is less relevant than knowing a problem was discovered and dealt with. |
This is the exact same analogy I was going to post. The "Record" or the "Blotter" for the night is exactly what we are talking about. Does it mean such instances are ignored? Not by any means. Does it mean that citizen 1235 has to be publicly harassed? Probably not. I'm all for the social controls afforded by "encouragement" to not deviate from reasonable standards, but hell, we've seen a post calling those who on average don't appreciate everything unanimously called out as troll voters, and we're questioning what would happen if we release the names of "community witches?" Why don't we just start by burning them at the stake or drowning them in hate mail?
And so far as calling out users after the fact, no source of knowledge would prevent those who are smug with expulsions from taking glee in the expulsion of those they have a vendetta for. They would just be vindicated in their vitriol, as they would know their vendettas were justified.
At the end of the day, for the large part, we're a gigantic dysfunctional family. We obsess over pointless goals (seriously, have you tried to explain the glory of a Blue Ribbon! to a non-photographer, non DPC friend? Go ahead, try it, then come back) and toil over silly slights that we deem horrid. We lay down, wallow in the mud, waste endless hours of our life, all in the pursuit of something that has an impact on but a community of several thousand active members and results in a few pixels we have on our profile. It's borderline neuroses, if you think about it. If my uncle Fred were a jerk, I'd still appreciate him for who he was, I needn't know all his transgressions, I'd still consider him my family. But if Fred were a pedophile, yeah, things might change. I rather consider DPC to be a rather large, bizarre, dysfunctional family. And in that family, when smaller things come up, yeah, I like to know somebody was paying attention, separate to if I was an unknowing party in the event. And yeah, I like to know regardless if something big occurred, if it's something noteworthy.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think it's much better that people know that things are noticed and taken care of. The "who" would be an interesting, gossipy thing to know, but unimportant. The fact that it was done and will be done in the future is important to the health of the site, imo. I think it helps morale. |
That's our basic thinking. It would be a lot easier for us not to mention any of this at all, just DO it: but then there's no awareness on the part of the membership that SC is on top of things and looking out for these sorts of problems. But at the same time it seems unnecessarily harsh to call out miscreants by name and subject them to public exposure. Should they REPEAT the behavior, you can be sure they will be shown the door promptly, and at THAT point they would most likely be named (although I can't speak for the rest of SC on that latter point). |
|
|
|
|
03/01/2015 05:17:52 AM · #70 |
Derek you are wildly exaggerating, nobody is talking about witches being burned at the stake or being gleeful at the prospect of someone being kicked out, I could readily forgive someone in real life for steeling from me and I've done so on numerous occasions, someone cheeting on DPC doesn't and couldn't make me think of them a lesser person. I do think however that if your uncle Fred had been steeling from you for some time and others in your household knew, you would appreciate knowing, if you were already an adult that would be even more true.
It is condescending to think that we as normal members can't handle the information, we are a small community, all of SC know, lots of other people know, if I were to send private messages left and right I would already probably know. Someone did something childish and stupid, so what, we all do, but by holding back the info it's as if SC are saying "look we caught someone cheating, we can handle it you don't need to know details because you will judge them and punish them because you are not as altruistic as we are." Condescending.
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 05:18:07. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:56:49 AM · #71 |
| The process should be transparent for many of the same reasons any system that metes out punishments should be transparent. Mostly because doing so avoids the appearance of the punishments being arbitrary, overly severe or the offenses being fabricated. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 09:01:09 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by jagar:
nobody is talking about witches being burned at the stake or being gleeful at the prospect of someone being kicked out, |
Being disparaged again.....
If someone that has been active is suspended or barred for serious misbehaviour, I think it is in the community's best interest to know. If someone was having a bad day or got out of hand in an argument, I don't think they need to be hauled out in the public square for everyone to see. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 09:53:18 AM · #73 |
After reading it all through again, I would keep it all private, and then, issue a PSA type memo post warning people clearly what the TOS rules are,and not to violate them.
But more importantly, if I don't like the types of shots someone does, I can't repeatedly give them low votes to discourage entering such shots? conversely, just because I recognize someone, I can't give them all great votes even though I really like all their shots without fail? who can judge what's reasonable.
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 13:27:30. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 09:59:05 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
But more importantly, if I don't like the types of shots someone does, I can't repeatedly give them low votes to discourage entering such shots? conversely, just because I recognize someone, I can give them all great votes? who can judge what's reasonable. |
Interesting point to what apparently is a biased system. I can recognize someone's entry and give them 10s all day long, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if I recognize that persons entry and I give them 1's then it's considered foul play and against the rules.
Seems like a case of double standards, perhaps? |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 10:17:05 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
But more importantly, if I don't like the types of shots someone does, I can't repeatedly give them low votes to discourage entering such shots? conversely, just because I recognize someone, I can give them all great votes? who can judge what's reasonable. |
Originally posted by Parabelle:
Interesting point to what apparently is a biased system. I can recognize someone's entry and give them 10s all day long, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if I recognize that persons entry and I give them 1's then it's considered foul play and against the rules.
Seems like a case of double standards, perhaps? |
No. That's not legal, either......it's "Buddy Voting" and has the ugly tendency to show up during League play....
No double standard whatsoever. It is definitely enforced.
|
|
