| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2006 01:52:51 PM · #101 |
No, what I said was I would not reconsider it given the passage of time. Judges don't go back and change decisions on cases based on what decisions are made later. They just move foward. Sometimes precedents change. In this instance, it has changed somewhat.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:55:05 PM · #102 |
| Sorry frisca I understand that. My comment was to A1275. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 01:58:57 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You're not going to be satisfied with this answer, but as a person who argues precedent for a living, and often not getting my way even in light of that, I don't think its fair to re-consider grigrigirl's image now. Yes, I think her image pushes the edge, but I didn't think (at that time) that she had run afoul of the sex act rule. Having had someone make what I felt were valid arguments about masturbation being an act of sex, I have changed my mind. |
I would hate to see grigrigirl's image DQ'd. A judgement was made and it survived. No need to bring it back into question now.
As DrAchoo pointed out earlier in the thread, when you choose to push the lines, you may get caught. It happens. I knew from the start that I was running a risk of a possible DQ as did Shutterpug. We accepted that risk and went forward with the entries.
We'll live with our and SC's decisions. Just can't be taking that sort of risk for the next 25 entries ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:14:15 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by frisca:
You're not going to be satisfied with this answer, but as a person who argues precedent for a living, and often not getting my way even in light of that, I don't think its fair to re-consider grigrigirl's image now. Yes, I think her image pushes the edge, but I didn't think (at that time) that she had run afoul of the sex act rule. Having had someone make what I felt were valid arguments about masturbation being an act of sex, I have changed my mind. |
I would hate to see grigrigirl's image DQ'd. A judgement was made and it survived. No need to bring it back into question now. |
Everyone seems impressed that there's been some "turnover" in the SC membership, while seemingly overlooking a perhaps more substantial turnover in the general site membership in the time between these two events.
Also, I'm curious if anyone's kept a tally of the non-SC pro/con DQ ratio expressed here -- my instinct says there has been considerable support on both sides ... with any subjective decision there's going to be a (partially valid) objection by the "losing" side. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:18:07 PM · #105 |
Not complaining or whining, just stating an opinion to the two people who created the images in question.
I thought the whole idea was cute and funny and harmless.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:25:23 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...while seemingly overlooking a perhaps more substantial turnover in the general site membership in the time between these two events....
|
Excellent point. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 03:31:56 PM · #107 |
What an awesome shots!
The technique is superb :)
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 15:34:12. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:32:20 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task.
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 21:34:10.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:46:25 PM · #109 |
"transpiring" ? huh? what're ya talking about here? ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:51:54 PM · #110 |
it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest"
Message edited by author 2006-02-20 21:52:30. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:12:44 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by crayon:
it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest" |
Really good point you make there, crayon.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 10:21:05 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by crayon:
it all depends on WHO is looking at what.
I know a friend who, when looking at, say, the mona lisa, would VERY likely say "nice chest" |
Wow, you hang out with Jacko?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 12:57:44 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
So size does matter ;) |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:19:16 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
So size does matter ;) |
Yes : I hope you're referring to focal length and maximum aperture :-D
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:35:00 AM · #115 |
Opens up a whole new world for "POLISHED TOOL PHOTOGRAPHY"
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 01:50:41 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by yanko:
I didn't say we saw them. It wasn't a prelude to what might transpire it WAS transpiring in fotoman's photo. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just reiterating what the rules currently state. |
Actually, no it wasn't transpiring. Risking TMI, it would be quite difficult to "maintain" and to set up camera and pose. The "bulge" was actually my hand pressing against the top of my shorts.
If you'll notice the position of my hand, it would be quite inefficient for such task. |
I probably should have clarified my post. I figured you weren't actually doing it but the point of the shot was to give the impression that you were doing it right then and there. At least that's how I took it when I saw the photos. And based on the rules as I understood them you couldn't do that. Showing events as they lead up to the act or moments aftewards were fine but not ones depicting the sex as it happens.
Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense?
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 01:54:48. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:07:03 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:10:46 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
IMHO This whole conversation is rediculous. I can't believe for one that either of these shots would be considered lude. In bad taste, perhaps. A poor excuse for humour, maybe. Sexually explicit, seen MTV lately?
I don't see any connection with past shots. I don't see any reason to bash S/C for being inconsistant (they can't rule on DQ if no one asks for it). I don't see any problem with collaborative efforts (two ribbon winners in a past challenge...) No cheese was harmed in the filming of either of these shots. I don't understand why they were DQ'ed but they were. Even if they were reinstated now it would simply sqew the statistics of the site. It's a privately run site. The shots were DQ'ed. Right or wrong it's the right of the site to do so. It's not like there are fabulous prizes at stake. It's just a silly waste of electrons to continue this conversation... Put them in your ports. If they aren't allowed here, put them on another site and post links. It's over and done with. I'm going to bed... |
Copied from the other thread cause I'm tired... |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:19:09 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by yanko:
... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David |
I never said the rule "works" as it is written or that it has been applied evenly for all images. If I was the author of that rule and the sole judge for judging this photo I probably wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not explicit because so little is shown. If their entire bodies were shown in this position... then I guess I probably would rule it a DQ but I would need to see that photo to judge it and we don't have that version. Btw, fotoman's photo was focus squarely on the crotch area where as this shows feet. The subject selected here is an important factor to consider, IMO.
Just to be clear, I am just going by how the rule is currently stated and my interpretation of it. Personally, I don't think having this rule works but DPC has it and should be applied just like any other rule. Really, the only problem here is the selective enforcement. I've offered a reasonable explanation of this selective enforcement, which may prove there is consistency but I'm not on the SC so I could be wrong.
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 02:23:58. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:36:34 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by yanko:
... Perhaps a better example would be two people having intercourse but the photo doesn't actually show any genitals because err.. umm.. they are covered by two pressing bodies. I figure that type of photo wouldn't be allowed under the current rules even though no genitalia was shown. One could also argue with that situation that they may not actually be having intercourse (since you don't see the private parts) but the photo leads you to believe they are at that moment. Does that make sense? |
Like this one? ;)
David |
I never said the rule "works" as it is written or that it has been applied evenly for all images. If I was the author of that rule and the sole judge for judging this photo I probably wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not explicit because so little is shown. If their entire bodies were shown in this position... then I guess I probably would rule it a DQ. Just for contrast, fotoman's photo was focus squarely on the crotch area where as this shows feet. The subject selected here is the difference, IMO.
Just to be clear, I am just going by how the rule is currently stated and my interpretation of it. Personally, I don't think having this rule works but DPC has it and should be applied just like any other rule. Really, the only problem here is the selective enforcement. I've offered a reasonable explanation of this selective enforcement, which may not be selective at all but I'm not on the SC so I could be wrong. |
Easy. I'm on your side. I'm just getting to feeling well after a week in bed -- just having a bit of fun. Although not as much as they are it would appear. :D
---
But I will reitterate a point that has been made many times. The rulings of the SC appear inconsistent to us -- but not to them. If they ruled on every image -- for every possible offence -- the consistency would probably be much better. But that is just not possible. They only rule on the images that are brought to their attention -- and then only one the reason it was brought to their attention (unless something obvious comes up).
I personally think they are doing as well as any group can be expected to. When groups lead, the rules are compromises. When compromises rule, any minority voice wins -- little by little. The only thing I find particularly odd about all this hoopla is that a site devoted to encouraging us to get outside of our boxes is continually looking for more boxes to put itself into. It just doesn't make much sense.
David
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:54:47 AM · #121 |
| Oh I agree. I was just trying to look at things from the SC perspective. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 03:50:10 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by David.C:
When groups lead, the rules are compromises. When compromises rule, any minority voice wins -- little by little... a site devoted to encouraging us to get outside of our boxes is continually looking for more boxes to put itself into. It just doesn't make much sense - David.C |
I'm gonna quote you! :p |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 05:35:58 AM · #123 |
It wasn't that racey. I didn't care for the one of the guy pulling the pud, but to be honest with you none of them were that horrible. You don't need to write a long apology, noone was hurt by it, infact the pictures were less dirty than something you may see at 9 0'clock at night on cable TV.
The pictures shouldn't have been banned. I think the SC's on this site should change their names to the SS.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Let's not get personal please. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 06:18:03 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
The challenge rules do not apply to portfolio pics, so you may post your image in your portfolio if you so wish. I personally do not find the images offensive, however, they DO depict an act of sex, which by the challenge rules is forbidden.
So lets see what all the talk is about! ;) (Just make sure you hit us up for a Thread title change if you post the pics here, so we can put up our 'warnings'.) |
If you recall julia bailey's (grlgril or whatever - I can never remember her user name) entry in the best of 2004 challenge - it portrayed the exact same 'sex act' and was quite provocatively titled - 'who needs a man' - but was not disqualified...now it was an incredibly senuous, beautifully lit image, but essentially the same content - so if you don't dq that (and I'm glad the SC didn't) then why were these photos disqualified?
some consistency please.
Edit: woops - it pays to read a whole thread. This post is more than a little redundant - but I'll leave it there as an independent statement of my opinion.
:).
Message edited by author 2006-02-21 06:19:14. |
|
|
|
02/21/2006 06:22:38 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by frisca:
If I might venture a few guesses on what happened with grigrigirl's photo, here are my thoughts:
1. implied act, not actual depiction. Her hand isn't down her pants, its just on its way. (much like a lot of the drug photos we get. Picture of the drugs, etc)
|
Her hand isn't down her pants - she isn't wearing any - the angle could be deceiving, but it appears to me that she is actually touching her genitals. But again - no 'sex organs' are shown - and certainly no 'sex organs' in the act of sex. |
|
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: 06/23/2025 09:15:32 AM EDT.
