| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2003 10:38:52 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Is it not true that under general public law that the accused can face their accuser, and is also required to clearly understand the accusations against them? If yes, then why can not this sort of logic not be utilized here at DPC?
It seems to me that the laws of the land were established by many great minds over many decades of debate and they tend to hold up fairly well to scrutiny, do you agree? |
The accused get to respond to the accuser (the site council are the accusers in this case - we decide if a DQ request is valid or not - it is not automatic just because someone clicks on the DQ button.) Currently at least 3 site council members have to have sufficent doubt before proof is requested. At that point, the 'accused' knows that we are querying if their shot is valid, by the current rules. That's the accusation. Then the way to refute the accusation is to provide a full and accurate accounting of how the particular image was created. If this is seen to be within the letter or spirit of the rules, then the image is validated. If not, it is DQed.
There is no hidden accusation within this - we ask when and how the picture was created, because we believe it may not be valid within the rules. An honest response typically resolves this in a painless and simple manner.
So the accused get to face their accuser with their explaination of how they made the image. The accusation is that the image is not valid under the rules. The rules are clearly stated (as well as we can) and available to all. Some times the DQ requests relate to a particular part of the image, but as there are often many ways to get to the same result, we ask how the whole image was achieved to keep things clean and simple.
Typically we want the original image and the steps to create the final version, simply so that we can validate it by doing the steps ourselves. Querying a particular point about the picture does not usually allow this sort of validation to take place, without the preceeding or subsequent steps.
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 11:19:50.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 12:26:11 PM · #27 |
| I thought that since now three days have passed since I received the original notification that my photo had been recommended for disqualification and submitted the original along with a description of what I had done to it I thought everything was fine, now today, I received a second email stating that the same picture had been recommended for disqualification, so now I resubmitted the same info again. I thought you only had to do this once if your photo was recommended for disqualification, I am a bit confused since like I mentioned earlier I'm not sure why it was recommended in the first place. Does this happen alot?? |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 12:36:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Shannon:
I thought that since now three days have passed since I received the original notification that my photo had been recommended for disqualification and submitted the original along with a description of what I had done to it I thought everything was fine, now today, I received a second email stating that the same picture had been recommended for disqualification, so now I resubmitted the same info again. I thought you only had to do this once if your photo was recommended for disqualification, I am a bit confused since like I mentioned earlier I'm not sure why it was recommended in the first place. Does this happen alot?? |
There actually is a glitch in the system where if the photo gets another DQ request after your original has been submitted, it sends it back up to one particular section, in order to get it back down where we can see the photo again, we have to request proof again. However, we may also re-request proof on the photo if the EXIF does not show, or if it's not the original photo. If the EXIF is not complete, we can only assume that editing has been done, so we give another chance to submit. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 12:43:38 PM · #29 |
What happens to photos with no exif? Lots of older cameras don't record that info..
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 12:48:06 PM · #30 |
they are taken out back and beaten with a wet noodle until meek
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What happens to photos with no exif? Lots of older cameras don't record that info.. |
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 03:15:25 PM · #31 |
| Just FYI: my entry has been validated, approx. 24 hrs after receiving the DQ request for it. Very prompt, IMO. |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 08:20:52 AM · #32 |
| It's been 3 days, and I'm still awaiting confirmation of the dq or not... |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 01:16:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
It's been 3 days, and I'm still awaiting confirmation of the dq or not... |
Have you viewed your entry for an admin comment, Koriyama? |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 01:40:58 PM · #34 |
I had one picture DQ'd and I just got a notice it had been Dq'd
another one had been suggested for DQ I sent the orignial as requested
and I never heard anymore but it was not DQ'D
Sue |
|
|
|
09/28/2003 02:28:43 PM · #35 |
Here's a link to yet another thread -- one day ago -- asking for info on a disqualification request. I really, really wish we had an onsite forum search and a clearer explanation right on the submission page of the DQ process. It's distressing to see how scared people get when they get these requests.
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=46416
|
|
|
|
09/28/2003 07:55:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Koriyama:
It's been 3 days, and I'm still awaiting confirmation of the dq or not... |
Have you viewed your entry for an admin comment, Koriyama? |
There's been nothing added....
...yet.
Sometimes, as Zeuszen is pointing out, admin add some text below the entry in red to confirm the legal status of an entry which may strike some as being illegal.
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 07:01:43 AM EDT.
