| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2006 12:39:55 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by meanwile:
Originally posted by karmat:
Yea :) But, please understand, things said in these forums, regardless of the context, seem to be written down somewhere as SC law, and I'm a little gun shy about making absolute statements.
:P |
Thanks to those who addressed this question. With respect to the above, can someone please direct me to where these things are written down? Thanks. |
They aren't, or at least not anywhere we can see them. We have the rules, and that's it. Karmat's point is that when an SC makes an absolute statement in the forums, speaking as an individual, some members assume this is "written in stone" and take it as a matter of site policy. So SC in general don't make absolute statements publicly, they leave wiggle-room...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-18 00:40:58.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:44:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by meanwile:
Originally posted by karmat:
Yea :) But, please understand, things said in these forums, regardless of the context, seem to be written down somewhere as SC law, and I'm a little gun shy about making absolute statements.
:P |
Thanks to those who addressed this question. With respect to the above, can someone please direct me to where these things are written down? Thanks. |
They aren't, or at least not anywhere we can see them. We have the rules, and that's it. Karmat's point is that when an SC makes an absolute statement in the forums, speaking as an individual, some members assume this is "written in stone" and take it as a matter of site policy. So SC in general don't make absolute statements publicly, they leave wiggle-room...
Robt. |
IMO, it's more fair-seeming when the process is transparent. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:05:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm confused. Could anybody request a DQ even after the voting period is long over? Or are you just talking about requests made during the voting period (or those that fall under the top 5 rule) that you just don't get around to in two week's time? In other words could someone request a DQ for a 2004 challenge entry? |
They could if they came across the same photo posted at another site and labelled "Christmas 2002" ... |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:16:45 AM · #29 |
I think the top 10 should be validated. It only makes sense. And if you guys just dont have enough time, then get some more SC members.
Sorta off topic, but its late also. :) |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:19:34 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by meanwile:
IMO, it's more fair-seeming when the process is transparent. |
I have considerable experience (elsewhere) at writing rules and policies, and one thing I know for a fact; it's impossible to write a set that anticipates every situation. And even if you TRY, they become unreadable. So you set up rules and guidelines and have "judges" to enforce them (SC in our case) and the judges have leeway to make exceptions as circumstances warrant.
But if you try to "codify" all exceptions, you remove necessary flexibility from the system.
A good example of a "judgment call" situation was just given; someone finishes in 6th place in a challenge with a legal image, goes on a 2 week vacation the next day, and comes home to find that two of the top three images were DQ'd, and his own, now-4th-place image had been DQ'd as well for failure to respond. Reinstatement would be entirely justifiable in this case.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:12:04 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
I think the top 10 should be validated. It only makes sense. And if you guys just dont have enough time, then get some more SC members.
Sorta off topic, but its late also. :) |
I agree. Top 10 should be validated. I don`t think validation takes that long. If 1 SC takes 2 images to validate, it should cover everyone right?
Message edited by author 2006-03-18 02:13:31. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 03:04:30 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by Riggs:
I think the top 10 should be validated. It only makes sense. And if you guys just dont have enough time, then get some more SC members.
Sorta off topic, but its late also. :) |
I agree. Top 10 should be validated. I don`t think validation takes that long. If 1 SC takes 2 images to validate, it should cover everyone right? |
One "problem" with this (maybe it isn't a problem, I don't know) is that it's relatively easy to see that your image may be in the running for a ribbon, but a LOT harder to predict a top-10 finish. We already have a fair number of instances where people who are going to be away have to arrange for potential validation of their images in their absence; i.e. mailing copies of originals to SC... Might this create a dramatic increase in "just in case" worriers?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 03:29:26 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
I don`t think validation takes that long. If 1 SC takes 2 images to validate, it should cover everyone right? |
That wouldn't work because before a photo is validated or DQ'ed it requires at least six different SC member votes. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 03:45:05 AM · #34 |
I think a random system should be in place similiar to sports drug testing.
This could be achieved without any precieved bias with a number of entries lets say 3-5 required to submit validation. The way to achieve random selection would be by posting beforehand the random numbers, for example images finishing 18th, 28th, 38th, 48th and 58th will require validation and a email sent to the those members after the challenge.
It has surprised me since I have been here how many people can't supply the Exif data, call it cheating or call it whatever we all know the rules. |
|
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: 11/10/2025 05:37:48 PM EST.
