| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2004 06:49:19 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Kali:
Life isn't fairâ€Â¦ if it was that would be pretty damn dull considering we are not equal. That is the beauty of life, knowing your faults and learning from them. Not creating delusions of grandeur. |
ALL ribbons have different values. Drew's was won against EIGHT competitors! How difficult is that compared to winning against 500? I understand where you are coming from, philosophically. Now, try and see where everyone else is coming from - FUN and LEARNING.
Without all those others in the challenge, a few people will win their first ribbons, but only 3 of them. And those people aren't exactly going to suck. Why can't we wait to see the results before saying "yep, well the photos in this challenge sucked."
M |
How can it possibly be fun to know that a ribbon was won by removing the frontrunners?
and again... the first challenge is a weak argument as is any argument about the amount of entrants de-valuing a ribbon.
I'm too am very anxious to see the outcome of the 'no ribbon' challenge.
Why should a ribbon be awarded for this challenge? It's only logical, no ribbon challenge = no ribbon, just a friendly challenge for those to compete 'against their own kind'.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:53:28 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Kali:
How can it possibly be fun to know that a ribbon was won by removing the frontrunners?
and again... the first challenge is a weak argument as is any argument about the amount of entrants de-valuing a ribbon.
|
My argument about the first challenge is that there were NO frontrunners. Everyone started off equal in that and we decided value from there. Value was originally created by someone winning a challenge with no previous winners...that's the similarity.
If someone wins a ribbon in this challenge and never again wins, then you'll have been right. They weren't ribbon material in the first place. However, if everyone has a good time, the ribbon winner goes on to win 3 in the next year and ends up with a 6.3 average overall, how can we argue his/her first ribbon had no value when obviously the photographer created the value by being better than 200 competitors?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:17:10 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It reminds me of the liberal approach that seeks to level the playing field so that eventually there will be no winners. But what type of site is DPC but a competive fori, for images. |
Please keep the politics out of this thread.
Thank you.
-Terry |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will accept the cencorship but my intention was not to introduce politics, but you need the political censors everywhere because politics runs rampant and the ideas on which DPC decided to downgrade by issuing a handicap is a defacto political move. However, I will not broach the subject again out of respect for the site. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:31:43 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
...how can we argue his/her first ribbon had no value when obviously the photographer created the value by being better than 200 competitors? |
Simple. Those 200 competitors were (mostly) "minor leaguers." |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:37:10 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mavrik:
...how can we argue his/her first ribbon had no value when obviously the photographer created the value by being better than 200 competitors? |
Simple. Those 200 competitors were (mostly) "minor leaguers." |
How many from that 200 will go on and win other ribbons though? So one ribbon winner will beat a bunch of OTHER ribbon winners. People don't win ribbons in their first challenge if they're good. Not always. Mag didn't. He's surely a great photographer.
M
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:40:19 PM · #181 |
There is no valid way to compare the value of ribbons across challenges. Each ribbon has worth in acknowledging the best of the photos submitted in that challenge.
This current invitational may attract 20 photos deservedly rated 8 (mine for example!). A "master's" challenge could draw 40 ho-hum entries.
To start complaining because "my ribbon isn't worth as much as his ribbon" sounds like ... |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:41:56 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mavrik:
...how can we argue his/her first ribbon had no value when obviously the photographer created the value by being better than 200 competitors? |
Simple. Those 200 competitors were (mostly) "minor leaguers." |
We've had about 5 blue-ribbon photos submitted by people entering their first challenge. I'm not sure they'd appreciate the characterization ... |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:42:42 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Kali:
I rarely enter anymore... and depending on what happens with this discrimination of ability I may not feel the need to contribute to a site that doesn't hold true to it's value & integrity. My morality demands that of me. |
Discrimination of ability...so if you have never won a ribbon, but finished 4th like 10 times, you suck?
|
you said it not me... and I disagree
Originally posted by mavrik:
"True to it's value of integrity" - you're talking about YOUR value of integrity, which is that prior to this all ribbons were created equal and now they are not. That simply isn't true, no matter how many semantic run arounds you try.
Your morality demands of you that you not compete on a site with different values of ribbon? Yet, as long as everyone "could" compete, it doesn't matter who actually does? A challenge with 9 newbie entrants is the same as a challenge with 500 including 'masters', but a challenge with 200 entrants and no ribbon winners isn't?
*still confused*
M |
I’ve never thought that ribbons were equal; you’re misinterpreting what I said. I didn’t say that my morality demands that I not compete on a site with multi valued ribbons. Let me try ONCE moreâ€Â¦ I’m just about spent.
I am unwilling to contribute to a site that awards ribbons to challenge winners where the proven ability is barred from competing. It̢۪s a phony ribbon awarded as the result of whining. That is how you cheapen integrity. Call me a prude but my morality will not allow me to forego membership with a site that does not retain similar virtues as simple as rationality. You̢۪re only as good as those you choose to surround yourself with.
P.S. I keep agreeing with you about ribbons having different values (especially for their owners) and you keep arguing against me. THAT is confusing.
Originally posted by mavrik:
If someone wins a ribbon in this challenge and never again wins, then you'll have been right. They weren't ribbon material in the first place. However, if everyone has a good time, the ribbon winner goes on to win 3 in the next year and ends up with a 6.3 average overall, how can we argue his/her first ribbon had no value when obviously the photographer created the value by being better than 200 competitors?
|
I won't argue an "if"
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 08:07:07 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Kali:
I̢۪ve never thought that ribbons were equal; |
Originally posted by Kali:
It makes the value of the ribbon a non-absolute. |
Originally posted by Kali:
I am unwilling to contribute to a site that awards ribbons to challenge winners where the proven ability is barred from competing. |
What about the proven ability of people who haven't paid $25? They are barred from entering the other challenges. There are some multiple ribbon winners who are barred from entering the member challenges. Do member challenge ribbons mean less because the entirety of DPC can't enter?
Originally posted by Kali:
It̢۪s a phony ribbon awarded as the result of whining. |
Phony in that no other ribbon winners competed? How is Drew's different?
Originally posted by Kali:
I won't argue an "if" |
You don't have to. This argument will be here long after both of us have left DPC. To the people of the future, wondering about the value of the ribbon awarded in this challenge, I ask - did the ribbon winner suck forever after? Or were they a good new or good old, but unribboned talent waiting to win their first?
It's been a good debate. We disagree and neither of us are likely to change positions. However, I do ask that you not quit DPC until you see who wins and how good you think they are and whether the images deserved ribbons.
Lots of people still don't stand a chance. They never will. The bottom of the pack will STILL be the bottom of the pack. This gives a bit more hope and faith to those who compete. So, I hope they enjoy their invitational. When we do a non-DSLR invitational, I'll gladly cheer that one too - and when we do a DSLR one, same thing. I think the concept of giving people something different is a good one.
Take care,
Matt
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 08:15:05 PM · #185 |
| The handicap is in. This will be repeated and those with the loudest mouth will bring up new groups to compete. This will continue until we round up all the browns and have them compete to see which one turns in the worst picture. Do not take offense, I got pretty near the brown, and I am not proud to have someone heave on my creation. ROFL |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 08:46:09 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Simple. Those 200 competitors were (mostly) "minor leaguers." |
We've had about 5 blue-ribbon photos submitted by people entering their first challenge. I'm not sure they'd appreciate the characterization ... |
Hence "mostly." Top baseball stars very often start in the minor leagues, so that term certainly shouldn't be taken as belittling to rising talents or their potential (most of you should know me better than that by now). It takes time, patience and effort to get a feel for the game. Some graduate very quickly to the 'big leagues' while others take longer, or simply enjoy playing the game at whatever level they're at.
The same is true on DPC as it is in baseball, and (though future stars are undoubtedly within that group) a game without the "defending champs' is a different contest no matter how you might rationalize it. To Mavrik's point, I would suggest that the first few challenges were also "minor league" events as the game was in its infancy and there were no stars or expectations. Where do you suppose the first few shots that ribboned would place in a current challenge?
I support the invitational challenges as fun diversions from the regular events, but ribbons really aren't the same unless all levels can compete. This is true for whichever level you restrict, but particularly true when you eliminate the top tier. Imagine the ratings for Wimbledon if only the unranked players were allowed to compete: even if Sampras or Navratilova were in that yet-to-be-discovered group, the results wouldn't carry the same prestige.
I'm sure I'm making LOTS of friends today. ;-P |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:16:49 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The handicap is in. This will be repeated and those with the loudest mouth will bring up new groups to compete. This will continue until we round up all the browns and have them compete to see which one turns in the worst picture. Do not take offense, I got pretty near the brown, and I am not proud to have someone heave on my creation. ROFL |
I don't remember you complaining about it when the first Masters challenge was being debated. If memory serves you were all for the idea of exclusive challenges back then.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:29:17 PM · #188 |
Hey: if you want to have challenges for 5 ribbons, 6 ribbons or 10 ribbons that is fine. Note that nothing here is being compromised. Yes, I would not qualify for them, but I certainly would find them educational and entertaining. But when it goes into the handicap region, that is more like involution.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 21:53:12. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:40:28 PM · #189 |
While I believe that everyone should have access to participate in ALL the challenges--there's an important point to be made that hasn't been made here.
Some ribbon winners (I am not implying most or all) are repeat winners for another reason--they are professionals. Either professional photographers, or graphics professionals, etc. They have not only more experience, but typically better equipment, including better lights and props (and are better at improvising them). They have access to professional models (which can really help--as I am sure you know, many people rate a photo by the beauty of the model as well as the skill of the photographer).
So I am beginning to think it would be a good idea to hold separate challenges for pros and nonpros. Both would continue to have ribbon winners, and there would still be the "masters" in each category. Sure, the competition among the pros would be different than among non-pros. But that's not a bad thing. The point is to make photography fun for all. Letting there be "more winners" simply means more people would be rewarded and feel more committed to taking more pictures and getting better still.
Perhaps further, like they do in my kids sports, if you want to "challenge" yourself, you can voluntarily "move up" and participate in a pro's challenge once and a while (maybe a limit on the times).
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 21:50:38. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:41:46 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Hey: of you want to have challenges for 5 ribbons, 6 ribbons or 10 ribbons that is fine. Note that nothing here is being compromised. Yes, I would not qualify for them, but I certainly would find them educational and entertaining. But when it goes into the handicap region, that is more like involution. |
You are inconsistent. It's ok for the ribboners to have there own challenges where they don't have to compete against the non-ribboners but draw the line at non-ribboners being able to compete among themselves? You can't have it both ways. I think the concept was flawed from the beginning and has gotten worse as the patches come forward. Soon we will have such a plethora fo different challenges that the ribbons will have a very diminished value as far as comparing the accomplishments of various photographers.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:57:37 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Hey: of you want to have challenges for 5 ribbons, 6 ribbons or 10 ribbons that is fine. Note that nothing here is being compromised. Yes, I would not qualify for them, but I certainly would find them educational and entertaining. But when it goes into the handicap region, that is more like involution. |
You are inconsistent. It's ok for the ribboners to have there own challenges where they don't have to compete against the non-ribboners but draw the line at non-ribboners being able to compete among themselves? You can't have it both ways. I think the concept was flawed from the beginning and has gotten worse as the patches come forward. Soon we will have such a plethora fo different challenges that the ribbons will have a very diminished value as far as comparing the accomplishments of various photographers. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, perhaps I misunderstand you. My argument is to maintain the integrity of the ribbons. No handicaps. Competition among non winners is handicapped. I promote any type of challenge that is not handycapped. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 10:16:48 PM · #192 |
Langdon, Nice that you are considering the non ribbon winners too. I feel a bit left out...lol I was not eligable for the Masters, since I only have two ribbons and not 3. Was also left out of the "no ribbon" challenge. :(
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 10:20:57 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
Langdon, Nice that you are considering the non ribbon winners too. I feel a bit left out...lol I was not eligable for the Masters, since I only have two ribbons and not 3. Was also left out of the "no ribbon" challenge. :( |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is okay. Everybody in every condition or state of being in DPC will have their days. The can of worm has been openned. lol |
|
|
|
11/20/2004 05:30:10 PM · #194 |
site council only invitational!!!
Admins too!!!!!
Message edited by author 2004-11-20 17:30:58.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2004 07:04:35 PM · #195 |
I don't see what people are complaining about. It's usually these same people that are real quick to talk about how 'ribbon's don't mean anything' or 'have fun'. I think alot of people feel like they are being taken advantage of because they had to compete against 'the best' (ribbon winners) to gain ribbons, while there will now be at least three ribbon winners that they feel are being handed a ribbon.
I can understand where someone who beat konador, or heida for their ribbon would be aggrivated that another gets 'the same ribbon' for going against 'minor leagers'.
I'm damn proud to be a minor leager, and will be more proud when I graduate from my potty training pants LoL. It's real easy to say a digital ribbon icon doesn't mean anything, but look at this thread. It's obvious that these ribbons mean more to people than they let on.
How does the minor league world series affect the major leagues? They have a chance to find players who are not exactly the best, but have talent none the less. I think it's awesome that they give us photographers who don't get much spotlight to be in that limelight.
The only thing that not having a ribbon means is that you have less ability to communicate with your art. It doesn't mean you are some lesser person who doesn't deserve some lime light. I am almost offended by the implication that i'm somehow 'untalented' because I can't beat life long artists, and don't deserve to be recognized because of such. The only people limiting anything are the people who 'disagree' with throwing a dog a bone every now and again. People can brow beat me all they want, I still stand up for the 'minor leagers' and say we are people and artists too. WE wouldn't NEED challenges like this if people gave us the time they give to the 'major leagers'. Instead of complaining about how we are getting our ribbons, why don't you start looking harder at the photos. It seems there is alot of time wasted in the forums about stuff like this. People should be enjoying what the Admins have given us, A PLACE TO SHOWCASE AND ENJOY PHOTOGRAPHY. Not complaining about how they have been violated because the admins decided it might be nice to have a challenge that isn't dominated by the same 20 people.
my two cents, let me get my helmet
Joe
edit: It just occured to me how often 'major league' players are sent to the minors to fine tune their skills. It also occured to me that no one seems to know the names of any minor league players, but as soon as they get called up (is this a handicap? no, it's a fine player getting his deserts) The announcers don't start talking about how much of an injustice it is that the players on the bench (who are major leagers) shouldn't have gotten to play. Just because he didn't start in the majors doesn't mean he doesn't belong. It just means he stuck out in a crowd of 'avg players', stuck out enough to join the big dogs. The same could be said here. Like I said before. This is only a chance for people hidden in the shadows to come out and show us some amazing stuff.
Message edited by author 2004-11-20 19:14:34.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 11:21:36 AM · #196 |
Everyone who won a ribbon after Low Tech was announced is now eligible to participate in the challenge. This only applies to 3 or 4 of you.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 12:01:26 PM · #197 |
6 actually... but thanks!
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-11-27 12:01:56.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2004 09:22:23 AM · #198 |
How about a "NEWBIES" challenge. The challenge would only be for "members". Must have only been registered with the site in the last 60 days. Have only entered less than 10 challenges.Keeping the challenge as simple as possible to demonstrate understanding rather than artistic quality.
I am such a newbie here and cringe at the idea of going up against some users who have a load of exeperience. It is very discouraging to me..intimidating if you will. When I look at some of the other users profiles and portfolios..I get scared! But I also look at those people work to learn a little something too.
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 10:05:52 PM EDT.
