| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2006 12:41:44 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Is this all for real?
Three DQ's in 3 entries. From someone who has only been a member for 15 days??? I'm beginning to wonder if someone is trying to make a "point".
Each case has used a different part of the rules to test but enough information has been left to make sure that we know the entry has pushed the boundaries.
I'm fairly certain that's not just a coincidence. Rose, is that you?
Brett |
Yeah it looks like there's an ulterior motive here judging by her posts. |
No, I don't think so, not at all. There is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, nothing like that.
I personally think she's a very good photographer who unfortunately might be having difficulty understanding the rules at DPChallenge. I hope we can help her understand them (the rules), and I hope she will continue to post images and enter challenges.
I am sad that she was offended by all of this. I really was trying to help, it didn't work. Stuff like that happens. It's time to forget and move on.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:58:24 AM · #52 |
Why would you think she has trouble understanding the rules? Judging by her posts she seems to know english quite well. Also, this isn't her first time through this process. Did she forget in a span of 7 days what an original was and how you send one of those or how DPC communicates? If this was her first time through this process I'd understand but this is the second time she has been asked to provide validation in a span of a week yet she's still naive about the whole process? Unless she has some medical condition I find it hard to believe her side of the story as it has transpired. Perhaps I am wrong but that's what I sense here.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 00:59:08.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:02:35 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Why would you think she has trouble understanding the rules? Judging by her posts she seems to know english quite well. Also, this isn't her first time through this process. Did she forget in a span of 7 days what an original was and how you send one of those or how DPC communicates? If this was her first time through this process I'd understand but this is the second time she has been asked to provide validation in a span of a week yet she's still naive about the whole process? Unless she has some medical condition I find it hard to believe her side of the story as it has transpired. Perhaps I am wrong but that's what I sense here. |
I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. If English is not her main language, then I think it is at least possible that she did not understand the rules, even if it is the second time that the same thing happens. It's not that easy to understand things in a language that is not your main language, believe me, I know. And sometimes it takes many failures to finally get something. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:18:27 AM · #54 |
nm
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 01:46:01. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:50:02 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by m:
Originally posted by ursula:
ADDED: I tried to get hold of her, to clarify the situation, but had no answer. I think it is only fair that Karen have her time on the front page. I do not (I'd like to say I hate) like to DQ images. It really bothers me. |
Her comments indicated that she responded to the e-mail she was sent. My own experience has been that these responses are silently ignored. Can somebody comment on whether these responses actually go to somebody?
In any event, I agree with her comments that the system is broken. Replying to the e-mail should go to the sender of the message. |
Sorry, m, but if I would have received an email from her, I would NOT have silently ignored it. That is just almost offensive for you to say. She probably tried to answer my email (PM) by hitting "reply", and that doesn't work when it is a PM. |
It's probably about as offensive as implying that I said that you would have ignored the letter. Even if that line was unclear, the context of the rest of my message should have made it clear that I was asking about the dpchallenge system in general. I've responded to e-mails I've been sent, and gotten no response; no bounces, no errors, no reaction from anybody. Perhaps a human did get the mail, and it was ignored, or as I continue to presume in the original message, the system is broken. I'm asking for confirmation if this is the case, and suggesting that it be fixed if it is.
If somebody receives a message via e-mail, from a valid e-mail address, with a valid return-path, it should be assumed that replying to the message works. This is especially true if the message is accepted without error, and especially if the user is new, and not used to previously replying and getting no response. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:54:28 AM · #56 |
| The bottom of each message says "Do not reply to this e-mail -- this is not users's e-mail address." If you reply, it'll return you a letter from the DPC system that says something about sorry, you didn't do it properly. If you replied via email and didn't receive a bounce message, your junk filter probably ate it. It works. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 02:15:50 AM · #57 |
Feels as if this thread was taking the same turn as so many other. I feel almost unwelcome getting back on topic: I just had a look at the other DQed images. 'Light of Elegance' has been dq'ed for adding text, but this looks like the text the camera puts in the image. Wouldn't this fall under the 'inside camera editing' rule?
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 07:10:12 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You should submit a request for validation -- don't post it here for speculative discussion. We can't validate/DQ unless someone requests it. |
You mean if you see an infraction you can't do anything about it unless someone else picks it up and asks you to? |
I mean we can't automatically see the infractions -- we don't look at every picture, and we generally can't read the photographer's comments until after the voting either.
|
Okay, that's how I guessed it worked, just the way you said "can't" made it appear as "not allowed" rather than "unable in a practical sense". Thanks for clarifying :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 08:36:26 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by gloda:
'Light of Elegance' has been dq'ed for adding text, but this looks like the text the camera puts in the image. Wouldn't this fall under the 'inside camera editing' rule? |
It would, except that the original in this case didn't have a date stamp on it. :-/ |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 09:13:40 AM · #60 |
JM2C:
I agree that the SC did their jobs and did them well, as always. It is unfortunate that the photo in question got DQ'ed, but from the way I see it the request for the OP wasn't met, so DQ it is. I also agree that we should NOT have a rule system that can bend on a case by case basis. One of the things I love about this site is that the rules are in place and that's that. No special favors, no bending "just this time," rules are there when you sign up and each time you enter a challenge.
I do a fair bit of traveling, I know when I'm going to be away from a computer and for how long. I always send in proof before I leave, I explain in my message to SC that I'll be out of town and that I wanted to submit proof of my image and explain IN DETAIL my PP steps. So far it's never let me down and I doubt it will.
So with that said, I commend the SC for doing their jobs well and keeping this site still the best around (IMHO).
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 09:16:27.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:19:08 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Is this all for real?
Three DQ's in 3 entries. From someone who has only been a member for 15 days??? I'm beginning to wonder if someone is trying to make a "point".
Each case has used a different part of the rules to test but enough information has been left to make sure that we know the entry has pushed the boundaries.
I'm fairly certain that's not just a coincidence. Rose, is that you?
Brett |
Yeah it looks like there's an ulterior motive here judging by her posts. |
No, I don't think so, not at all. There is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, nothing like that.
I personally think she's a very good photographer who unfortunately might be having difficulty understanding the rules at DPChallenge. I hope we can help her understand them (the rules), and I hope she will continue to post images and enter challenges.
I am sad that she was offended by all of this. I really was trying to help, it didn't work. Stuff like that happens. It's time to forget and move on. |
If you look at the DQ'd image, she's updated her comments and she's PO'd. So she's around. I think she's also 0 for 3 as soon as someone requests validation on her other image.
As to posting more, isn't she automatically suspended after two (soon to be three) infractions in a short time span?
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:23:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
As to posting more, isn't she automatically suspended after two (soon to be three) infractions in a short time span? |
only suspended from submitting to challenges. the rest of the site is still "available" to her (or anyone in this situation). |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:09:20 PM · #63 |
In the e-mail that she added to her Photographer's Comments of the DQ'ed yellow ribbon shot in response to ursula's e-mail, and in the Added Note following it, there may be a slight hint that Photopromo is not totally fluent in the English language. But when you read her bio on her profile page you get the opposite impression in a stronger fashion. She is no newcomer to photography - DSLR & studio strobes - and has found a way to access the internet while away from home. I suspect that she just didn't fathom how serious we take the rules here. Perhaps she is used to posting images on sites that don't have competitions. If she gets the third DQ, as it seems she might, she could be suspended for quite some time. Maybe the SC will show some "flexibility" in applying the rules about how long she is banned from entering, maybe a reinstatement on a probational basis (supplying originals in advance for all entries) after some reasonable time on the bench would be appropriate. If she is sincere she should still be trying to provide an acceptable original file even after the DQ decison and after her return home. That would show good faith on her part as it would reinforce that her earlier failure to do so was indeed because of the reasons stated - traveling.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2006 05:23:25 PM · #64 |
Hera (photopromo) provided us with proof today for her disqualified third place image, "The Great Expectation".
There is nothing illegal with this image, there was simply a misunderstanding as to what is an original.
I'd like everyone to know that Hera did not cheat in any way. She is very concerned about people thinking poorly of her. Nobody should think bad of her.
I'm sorry that this happened, but things like it happen sometimes. I'm very glad that it's been cleared. I personally hope that Hera continues to participate here, maybe even enters some more challenges. I'm quite sure she'd able to ribbon easily.
Edit: added link.
Message edited by author 2006-06-19 17:31:46. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 06:17:25 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Hera (photopromo) provided us with proof today for her disqualified third place image, "The Great Expectation".
There is nothing illegal with this image, there was simply a misunderstanding as to what is an original.
I'd like everyone to know that Hera did not cheat in any way. She is very concerned about people thinking poorly of her. Nobody should think bad of her.
I'm sorry that this happened, but things like it happen sometimes. I'm very glad that it's been cleared. I personally hope that Hera continues to participate here, maybe even enters some more challenges. I'm quite sure she'd able to ribbon easily.
Edit: added link. |
I refuse to think bad of her. She does good work. Sorry, but I can't comply. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 06:43:20 PM · #66 |
Bottom line that sucks. As long as you have the raw image, it should be allowed. If this was a job I could understand the absolute dead line rule, this is for fun.
Why strip deserved credit due to bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 06:47:17 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Fibre Optix:
Bottom line that sucks. As long as you have the raw image, it should be allowed. If this was a job I could understand the absolute dead line rule, this is for fun.
Why strip deserved credit due to bureaucracy. |
How would you feel if you came in 4th place and proof was only submitted after the results of the challenge were off the front page and it was proven that the 3rd place was not legal? That would have robbed you from appearing on the front page...As simple as that...Rules are there for everyone. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 06:52:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Fibre Optix:
Bottom line that sucks. As long as you have the raw image, it should be allowed. If this was a job I could understand the absolute dead line rule, this is for fun.
Why strip deserved credit due to bureaucracy. |
How would you feel if you came in 4th place and proof was only submitted after the results of the challenge were off the front page and it was proven that the 3rd place was not legal? That would have robbed you from appearing on the front page...As simple as that...Rules are there for everyone. |
Did you even read my post?
Front page? Who F#@!'n cares about the front page. If I came in 4th and now its 3rd - not because it's better but because of bureaucracy. Ya that would make me feel alot better. <-- SARCASIM
Message edited by author 2006-06-19 18:53:09. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 06:58:33 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Fibre Optix:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Fibre Optix:
Bottom line that sucks. As long as you have the raw image, it should be allowed. If this was a job I could understand the absolute dead line rule, this is for fun.
Why strip deserved credit due to bureaucracy. |
How would you feel if you came in 4th place and proof was only submitted after the results of the challenge were off the front page and it was proven that the 3rd place was not legal? That would have robbed you from appearing on the front page...As simple as that...Rules are there for everyone. |
Did you even read my post?
Front page? Who F#@!'n cares about the front page. If I came in 4th and now its 3rd - not because it's better but because of bureaucracy. Ya that would make me feel alot better. <-- SARCASIM |
Did YOU read mine? I'm talking about the hypothetical situation where the 3rd place was illegal. Got it? And watch your language or take your medication. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 07:07:30 PM · #70 |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 07:08:24 PM · #71 |
Keep it friendly, folks. We can disagree without using foul language or personal attacks
|
|
|
|
06/19/2006 07:12:28 PM · #72 |
Oh come on I was'nt attacking anyone.
And yes I have a femine side. |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 07:15:42 PM · #73 |
| Aww, you changed it... and I kinda liked the pigtails on your icon ;) |
|
|
|
06/19/2006 07:38:05 PM · #74 |
Kudos to the SC for doing the right thing when it would have been easy to cop out and bend the rules as public opinion would seem to have preferred.
|
|
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: 08/06/2025 07:46:20 PM EDT.
