| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2006 09:03:53 AM · #251 |
WOW! I noticed the title to this thread last night, thought it was a "tongue in cheek" type sarcasm and didn't open it. 12 hours later it's still going strong and 10 pages deep!
I haven't read all 10 pages, don't plan to.
Just want to say that I think DPChallenge is a wonderful site to learn, share, and compete with digital photography. The owners (Drew and Langdon) keep things loose enough to be fun but tight enough to not let things get crazy when someone goes off the deep end (this thread for example).
The last time they went asking for names for the SC (publicly in these same forums) I considered putting my name in. I considered it because I enjoy this site so much and giving a little back would be a nice thing to do...I balked and didn't submit because family, work, and photo hobby takes too much time and I selfishly didn't want to commit (not that I would have been approved as I can be a bit fiesty at times).
The point I wanted to lead up to with that last lengthy paragraph is; SC are volunteers and aren't compensated in any way commensurate with the amount of personal time they put in here. I think they should be applauded for a job well done.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:13:56 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
...
I think everyone is in withdrawal for a current installment of the "DPC Enquirer" and Godzilla. |
Not as good as the originals but thought I'd try to help heal the pain... 
by the way SC you ROCK!!!
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:14:36 AM · #253 |
Edited because I don't feel the need to leave 10 bazillion lines of text in place. :) David was discussing the fact that a post was hidden by SC at the beginning of the thread.
Originally posted by dpaull:
It was the first post written by anyone else in this thread, and was done so in a combative, negeative, inflammatory manner, which has been deemed innapropriate, even in such an 'abrasive' thread to begin with.
|
I think a critical issue which you and some other individuals fail to grasp is well represented here. It doesn't matter if the thread is "going south", abrasive, or otherwise not perfect. No individual has the right to push that thread over the cliff.
As a community, we ALL have a responsiblity to try and make this a fun place to participate. Folks are going to disagree, lose their tempers. That happens everywhere. Editing and locking are tools we use to try and keep things as balanced as possible.
If an individual REPEATEDLY keeps trying to push the discussion off the cliff, then that may result in the thread being locked, or edited. It may also result in disciplinary action if the user who keeps pushing it off the cliff does not modify their behavior.
Bobster, you have made some valid comments.
Keep in mind that the type of change some of you would like to see would require a good deal of work, time and energy to create and impliment. If that is something that you think is a big enough priority, you need to let Drew and Langdon know via PM. It would possibly fundimentally shift how the whole site is administered. It's not something that could ever be done lightly.
As a group, we do our best. Now I realize that it may not be enough for some folks. I'm okay with that. At the end of the day, I know that this team has given 100 percent of what they have to give that day.
Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:17:36 AM · #254 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
I think you should have to be at least 22 years old to be a member of the site council. Most people under that is just too young and immature in my opinion.
I think there should be a seperate SPAM forum just so people can type up their SPAM.
I think elections for site council members should be held once a year when their term is up...and they should be voted on, and nominated by, ALL paying members. |
im 18, currently at University studying Politics and International Relations, eager to learn. im not even considering SC, but what makes me too immature? i know plenty of immature 22 year olds- most of them seem to be on my course with me :) i think drawing the line like that is a bit of a generalisation. and its ''Most people under that are just too young...'' ;) no offence meant i just think its a bit radical thats all |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:20:58 AM · #255 |
I don't agree with most of the negative comments to the SC.
I feel that they do a wonderful job in this site and that is very comprehensible to have mistakes once in a while, though we're only humans.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:25:18 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Dave, you, your attitude, your demeanor, your immaturity, and your inability to participate in an adult manor are the main thing that makes DPC suck for me. I have rants turned off, but I can't turn you off. You talk about your love for the site and wanting it to be better, but all you do is piss in the pond we all have to drink from. Rather than try to affect change with intelligent discourse and reasoned postings, you choose to spew.
Why does it bother me so? Because I love photography! And what you do is keep people away from it! How? Look at how much time people have put into this one absolutely idiotic thread. Time that could have been spent voting, commenting, editing, sharing, or any number of other positive activities has been spent either trying to put out the fire you started, or watching to see if it was going to be put it.
I truly appreciate all the efforts of the SC, D&L, and the members who contribute their time and efforts to make it better.
Honestly, I really enjoyed the relative peace and quiet while you were gone, and I wouldn't mind more of that. A LOT more of that... |
Ditto |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:29:11 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
 |
  |
and you told me i was too immature? hmm. in my opinion the SC do a great job- good luck to them! |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:37:39 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by skiprow:
Look at how much time people have put into this one absolutely idiotic thread. Time that could have been spent voting, commenting, editing, sharing, or any number of other positive activities |
Ditto |
Ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:40:05 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
... is a success for the cause. |
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know, we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know, we all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
And you know it's gonna be alright, alright, alright ...
--John Lennon
Originally posted by dpaull:
Anyway, in closing, yeah, I think the site needs some changes. What they should be or what they need to be to keep everyone happy, I can't be sure. But it would be nice to have a normal discussion where the sarcasm and attitudes are left at the door... |
So just how would you characterize starting a thread titled "Down with SC!"
Perhaps starting a suggestion thread where you actually put forth a constructive or practical suggestion would be a good start. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:45:28 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by dpaull:
That particular post, which is no longer around, may have served the purpose in showing every reader just why the thread went south... |
Looks like you pointed in that direction right from the start and hit the gas. "Down with SC... I'm tired of seeing people get robbed of ribbons or people not allowed to post their feelings because some members of the site council disagreed with their methods or their posts...especially when it IS ALLOWED for some members, and NOT ALLOWED for others."
You start off with wild, unsupported accusations of bias or favoritism and blame a later post for souring the tone of the thread? Are you serious? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 09:53:10 AM · #261 |
i wish i had as much time to waste as some folks around here.
i wonder what it's like to have nothing better to do than ponder new and better ways to pester others.
maybe someday when i am collecting unemployment and letting someone else pay my bills i'll understand - yeah that'll be the day...
and no i didn't read all 11 pages of this thread, i have better things to do.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:01:58 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by notonline:
I didn't see a popcorn thingy yet.
just kidding. this is so I don't lose my spot. Kinda like a virtual bookmark. |
 |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:18:06 AM · #263 |
Wow! What a read!
First - I wouldn't mind being an SC member. But having said that, there are a few things I am puzzled about with some of the actions taken. As an example, the other day a post I made I changed within a minute to "..." and based on the views of the thread (I checked) in that minute NO ONE had viewed the thread. So WHY was this post removed?
Even the original post before changing was not offensive in any way, it only asked a question ("can't you make up your own minds on anything?"). But it was obvious to me, regardless of what my post said, due to the original poster's relationship to an SC member and the fact that we have disagreed on things in the past, my post would have been removed no matter what I asked. And the fact that the three dots were removed to me proves this. To me this demonstrates an abuse of SC abilities. Especially since the three dots were removed sometime later. Can someone explain this please?
As an auditor I have a lot of experience trying to determine if something meets requirements (rules) or not. I know how hard it can be sometimes even under the best of circumstances. So my concern is not with their actions as far as DQ's, etc. are concerned. But I do question the removal of posts sometimes and a lot of times this seems to be a personally directed action and not as a genuine concern for the demeanor of the site/forum/thread and violation of TOS. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:20:31 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Wow! What a read!
First - I wouldn't mind being an SC member. But having said that, there are a few things I am puzzled about with some of the actions taken. As an example, the other day a post I made I changed within a minute to "..." and based on the views of the thread (I checked) in that minute NO ONE had viewed the thread. So WHY was this post removed?
Even the original post before changing was not offensive in any way, it only asked a question ("can't you make up your own minds on anything?"). But it was obvious to me, regardless of what my post said, due to the original poster's relationship to an SC member and the fact that we have disagreed on things in the past, my post would have been removed no matter what I asked. And the fact that the three dots were removed to me proves this. To me this demonstrates an abuse of SC abilities. Especially since the three dots were removed sometime later. Can someone explain this please?
As an auditor I have a lot of experience trying to determine if something meets requirements (rules) or not. I know how hard it can be sometimes even under the best of circumstances. So my concern is not with their actions as far as DQ's, etc. are concerned. But I do question the removal of posts sometimes and a lot of times this seems to be a personally directed action and not as a genuine concern for the demeanor of the site/forum/thread and violation of TOS. |
Posts that are edited by the SC will say by whom they are edited and usually the reason why at the bottom. If you're unsure why it was edited, you can usually shoot a PM to the person who did it and ask. You're also welcome to submit a ticket through the contact page or report the post with your question which will bring it to everyone's attention. I'm not sure what specific post you're talking about so I have no answer for that. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:22:51 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
the other day a post I made I changed within a minute to "..." and based on the views of the thread (I checked) in that minute NO ONE had viewed the thread. |
How would an SC member have edited your post without viewing the thread? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:23:40 AM · #266 |
You did not read my post correctly...
I posted a question then I changed it to "..." within a minute. But sometime later an SC REMOVED the post completely even though all it said was "..." Why was it removed?
Even more important, I actually suspect that an ACTUAL SC member did not remove it but the OP logged in as the SC member and they removed it.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 10:27:15. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:28:30 AM · #267 |
| Oh, if that's all it said, someone probably figured it was a duplicate post or a mistake or something and hid it. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:29:01 AM · #268 |
| Oh OK... I may have been the one who hid it. If I see a post the just says "..." or "sorry, duplicate post," I'll often hide it to eliminate the clutter. Just trying to be helpful by hiding what appears to be an accidental post. If there was no content, then why would you care if it was removed? |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:29:43 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
How would an SC member have edited your post without viewing the thread? |
Again, you misread my post. I posted a question and a minute later changed it. In that minute that my question was actually in the thread no one viewed it. The three dots were removed sometime later - like hours.
There are lots of posts that just say "..." and I have never seen any removed before. And I care that it was removed since if I changed my mind later and wanted to go back and ask the question, the place I had in the thread where it was appropriate is now gone. And in fact I went back to do just that and that is how I discovered it was gone.
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 10:32:55. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:34:32 AM · #270 |
Well, you can't see the ones that HAVE been removed, can you?
If you want to have a post, put in some content. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:37:11 AM · #271 |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:37:39 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
I actually suspect that an ACTUAL SC member did not remove it but the OP logged in as the SC member and they removed it. |
Why on earth would someone related to an SC member login under an SC name just to delete a "..." post? I can't imagine any spouse, etc. risking the reputation of an SC member by doing something in his or her capacity. I'm sure you HAVE seen deleted posts that weren't hidden. So?
Good grief... it's bad enough when people complain about us hiding blatantly offensive posts. Now, even hiding "nothing" is an issue! :-(
Message edited by author 2006-01-10 10:40:50. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:47:30 AM · #273 |
| At the risk of being a threadkill, I just wanted to say that my experience so far with SC is that they are kind and helpful to new people, like me. (Sorry...nothing controversial here.) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:49:13 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I can't imagine any spouse, etc. risking the reputation of an SC member |
Does OP not mean original poster? Nothing about spouses or relatives. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:51:09 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by gloda:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I can't imagine any spouse, etc. risking the reputation of an SC member |
Does OP not mean original poster? Nothing about spouses or relatives. |
My response was based on this statement and the fact that ONLY the SC and Admins can hide forum posts...
Originally posted by Alienyst:
...due to the original poster's relationship to an SC member... |
|
|
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: 08/07/2025 06:17:17 AM EDT.
