| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2006 02:09:04 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
consensus of the commenters was that flowers-on-black was overdone to the point of cliché, then this definitely has the potential of causing a few people to look at any actual flower-on-black entries differently than they might have.
I think it's a perfectly sensible rule, actually.
Robt. |
But such is only going to occur if a great number are already tired by flowers on black background. And thus would likely have already been affected by voters.
Frankly...I AM JUST GETTING SO SICK OF THE ANAL RETENTIVENESS.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 02:16:14. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:10:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
consensus of the commenters was that flowers-on-black was overdone to the point of cliché, then this definitely has the potential of causing a few people to look at any actual flower-on-black entries differently than they might have.
I think it's a perfectly sensible rule, actually.
Robt. |
But such is only going to occur if a great number are already tired by flowers on black background. And thus would likely have already been affected by voters.
Frankly...I AM JUST GETTING SO !@#$% SICK OF THE ANAL RETENTIVENESS. |
High Five Saj!...let's go to bed. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:12:03 AM · #28 |
Just for the record, I'm not being anal retentive here, just trying to explain a rule so it makes sense. I didn't make the rule, and I'm not in charge of enforcing it, and it's a guideline anyway, not a rule, so....
Off to bed with me.
R. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:12:29 AM · #29 |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:13:27 AM · #30 |
Personally, I find the supposition that voters are so shallow that they cannot be objective because they've seen or read discussions about a picture that was intended for a challenge during voting insulting. I give voters more credit than that.
Restricting discussion about the challenge topic and what does or does not make a good image for it runs counter to the idea that this is a teaching and learning site. I understand the worthy intention to make voting objective but this rule only teaches us that scores are more important than learning something new.
That being said, rules are rules and should always be agressively honored until such time they are changed.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 02:26:48 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the record, I'm not being anal retentive here, just trying to explain a rule so it makes sense. I didn't make the rule, and I'm not in charge of enforcing it, and it's a guideline anyway, not a rule, so....
Off to bed with me.
R. |
It's not just this issue. It's the bloody nit-pickiness. It's the desire of many to find any bloody reason they can to disqualify an entry. It's this bind to rule and law.
Screw it...
I am sick of it. I've gotten screwed by rules and laws my whole life. Case in point. I made a stupid mistake. I entered [removed description of challenge photo] into the recent challenge. That earned me at least 1 point for DNMC. As technically, [removed more description of challenge photo].
*shrug*
Sorry, I went on good faith, I slipped. And in this case it was rightfully so. But I've had numerous other 1's that I know were NOT rightfully so.
And now I just broke another rule. Because I declared an entry I have in a current challenge. Well, I don't care... "DNMC = 1" always frustrate and piss me off. If it's blatant...fine. But when people make a decent endeavor. Anyways....
Rules used aggressively when there is no need = oppression, IMHO.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed text revealing challenge entry. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 06:31:13 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
... But I've had numerous other 1's that I know were NOT rightfully so. ... Rules used aggressively when there is no need = oppression, IMHO. |
I find this interesting -- no judgement, just interest. The same stimulus leading to exactly opposite results. What had led you to disregard the rule, is exactly what led to its creation in the first place.
I have been vocal against this rule (and it is a rule, #2) since it was just an excuse used by a few to explain away a few 1's they felt they didn't deserve. But enough people are grasping for some way to explain low scores its popularity escalated until now it is a poorly defined rule.
What is an outtake? Whatever a member of the SC choices to enforce the rule upon -- and nothing else. Any definition clearer than that quickly runs into an unenforcability. When I pointed that out (phrased differently) when it was made a rule, I was told by a represetative of the SC to effectively 'trust us to enforce it where needed'.
** shrug **
It, and several other current (and not so current) events, are bombs waiting to explode. Every now and then someone lights one of the fuses and it burns for a while until it sputters out -- all the while fuses are getting shorter and shorter around here. Sooner or later these bombs are going to start exploding -- but after they do, the core of the site will continue on in spite of it all. Assuming of course (as I do) that the site survives the explosions. But the core of the site has been getting awful hard to see thru all the smoke this past year or so.
In any event, with my apologies to Leah for aiding in the off-topic discussion -- I'm off to comment on a few of her images.
David
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 07:57:50 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
... It simply says that it is frowned upon. ... |
Actually, it's a bit more than that. You might want to visit the Forum Rules. This item falls under rule #2:
"Please do not discuss specific challenge entries or outtakes until voting has ended. Doing so can affect voting and commenting, so please save these discussions for after the end of the voting period. Please report any posts discussing these, and do not reply to them. Outtake threads posted early will be removed."
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 08:43:57 AM · #34 |
To me, if you did not enter an entry. Then discussion is not regarding a specific challenge entry.
If you did not enter an entry, then it's not an outtake. It's not related to a specific entry.
I see no issue of "darn, I missed the challenge this is what I was planning to enter" or, "I decided to pull this entry at the last minute. Do you think it would have fit the challenge?" or "This would have been my entry but I couldn't get it to work."
Such discussions are not related to an actual entry and I do not feel they have anymore effect than posting images as examples or referring to past challenges.
What difference is there in posting a challenge entry that did not occur as opposed to posting an example I took last month or posting an image from a "X Challenge I".
I don't see it. The truth, humans have a tendency upon seeing a rule to make it their god-given duty to extend and embrace that rule further and further in the name of good caution. Until we reach a point where we decide we cannot put cheese on chicken because a passage says don't roast a kid in it's mother's milk. We push it so far that we ignore that chickens don't have milk. Ironically, we usually miss much more applicable situations with the rules and find ourselves eating stir fried rice with chicken and egg in it.
And yes, my comments regarding my current entry were removed. I do believe that is a valid aspect of the rule. Likewise, I don't care cause I am sick of DNMC. Damn sick of them...
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 09:12:15 AM · #35 |
I agree that the idea of a discussion about one type of photo affecting a current vote is not a good reason to keep a photo off the boards.
However, with Bluemoon's situation we are dealing with a big thing that DOES matter to many.
Putting a photo on the forums you INTENDED to enter in a current challenge and then asking people to comment on it goes against courtesy to those that do have photos in a challenge..all photos..not just those similar.
There are a variety of reasons this is discourteous. First, there is a photo "discussion" if you will of photos like that going on right now...in the vote. It is discourteous to have a "One PhotoVote" going on parallel to that. Not illegal, discourteous.
Second (and I am not saying this is the case but I have known others to do this) People get a chance to get feedback on a photo without risking any number vote. I know many people who get so wound up about a number vote that they prefer not getting thisvote and simply want feedback. Fine..do it AFTER the current vote. Once again...courtesy.
I am not attacking Bluemoon but I do understand why this "Non-Rule" is in effect. I think the "rule" should be given a little more teeth by clarifying a few things but I agree with it. I do not think it is the same thing as talking about photographic technique that may or may not be represented in a current challenge.
Which answers Saj's question of "What difference is there in posting a challenge entry that did not occur as opposed to posting an example I took last month or posting an image from a "X Challenge I". |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 09:50:21 AM · #36 |
Again, it is a ludicrous rule.
How about this.
1 - Pick a word that makes sense to define the crime. Outtake, by definition, is not what these photos are since the people have not entered anything in the challenge - hence, no outtake. Figure out exactly what you feel the offense is here and codify it in an actual rule using words that make sense. Hint, if you can't put it in words then it probably isn't a problem.
2 - With gun on hip and froth on lips, make a similiar rule to stop this nonsense with people fishing for comments on photos that they then turn around and enter in a challenge. This doesn't only happen with fres studies, it happens more and more, and it is complete crap. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:04:24 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Again, it is a ludicrous rule.
How about this.
1 - Pick a word that makes sense to define the crime. Outtake, by definition, is not what these photos are since the people have not entered anything in the challenge - hence, no outtake. Figure out exactly what you feel the offense is here and codify it in an actual rule using words that make sense. Hint, if you can't put it in words then it probably isn't a problem.
2 - With gun on hip and froth on lips, make a similiar rule to stop this nonsense with people fishing for comments on photos that they then turn around and enter in a challenge. This doesn't only happen with fres studies, it happens more and more, and it is complete crap. |
I think people are saying it is not courteous to have an informal "vote" on a photo in parallel to an ongoing challenge of the same topic. I don't think that is ludicorous..it is simply being a reasonable member of a community as agreed to by the TOS and the various rules.
I think your second topic is valid but it is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread. It would be better discussed in it's own thread I think and not attached to this topic.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 10:04:56. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:08:29 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I think your second topic is valid but it is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread. It would be better discussed in it's own thread I think and not attached to this topic. |
The topic of this post got sunk by the second poster in the thread... |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:16:00 AM · #39 |
Folks, regardless of all the opinions expressed in this thread, I did the same thing as Blue Moon a couple of months ago and the thread was almost immediately locked by an SC member. This isn't Bear's opinion, or Judi's opinion, it's something the SC has enforced in the past.
There are numerous threads where SC members have explained the thinking, and it's exactly what Bear has said. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:16:21 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by hokie:
I think your second topic is valid but it is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread. It would be better discussed in it's own thread I think and not attached to this topic. |
The topic of this post got sunk by the second poster in the thread... |
Actually the topic is/was about viewing and informally voting on a photo that was intended to be in a current challenge and the response was to that specifically.
However, out of respect to the original poster we could start another thread in the General Discussion to help refine what might be good suggestions on modifying rule #2 to help clarify it.
Your second topic is interesting in itself and could be another topic in General Discussion. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:17:39 AM · #41 |
Disqualification Message:
Any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph will result in immediate loss of account and a ban from the site.
This is the councils wording |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 10:20:14 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by hywind:
Disqualification Message:
Any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph will result in immediate loss of account and a ban from the site.
This is the councils wording |
That seems to address routerguy666 second point about people posting photos they intend to enter. Now the key would be enforcing it :-P |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:28:26 AM · #43 |
I do agree that the word "outtake" should be changed/clarified.
If you did not enter the challenge, how can it be an outtake?
Perhaps it should further say "...also photos that you missed the deadline with..."
I hope that many legitimate arguments like these are changed by the webmasters here. That would be the professional and responsive way to go. And, no, I don't think every detail should be unendlessly mandated. Some common sense and courtesy should prevail in public places.
I did the same thing in the "Camera-self portrait" challenge.
Many of my entries were in the last 5 minutes or didn't ever make it.
I was asked to remove my 2 photos that didn't make the press and I did promptly, apologizing for not reading the rules page.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:50:48 AM · #44 |
When I first saw the title of this thread, I wanted to post that it should be titled "Sooooooooo Pissed...30seconds late!!!! vote after you vote on the other entries, please but didn't figure it would go over well.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 01:05:36 PM · #45 |
Yes, it should be called "out-takes or alternates."
The issue is not just one of vote influencing, it is one of fairness to the entries. We have a call for people to post a certain type of photo, with a deadline.
If you miss that and post what you would have entered, you are (literally, in the case of this thread) saying "don't look at the actual entries which were submitted on time, look at me instead!"
If you've already entered, and post an "out-take" then you are essentially asking for everyone to look at your two entries, when everyone else limits themselves to one.
The key is to let people concentrate on the entries during the voting period, without selfishly calling attention to your photo -- I don't get to specify which is mine, so why should anyone else.
After the voting, post away; that's the time when the question "how would my picture have done" can be answered, in the context of having some actual results. To ask it during the voting is a meaningless distraction, which we prohibited after much earlier discussion closely resembling this thread. |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 01:07:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, it should be called "out-takes or alternates."
The issue is not just one of vote influencing, it is one of fairness to the entries. We have a call for people to post a certain type of photo, with a deadline.
If you miss that and post what you would have entered, you are (literally, in the case of this thread) saying "don't look at the actual entries which were submitted on time, look at me instead!"
If you've already entered, and post an "out-take" then you are essentially asking for everyone to look at your two entries, when everyone else limits themselves to one.
The key is to let people concentrate on the entries during the voting period, without selfishly calling attention to your photo -- I don't get to specify which is mine, so why should anyone else.
After the voting, post away; that's the time when the question "how would my picture have done" can be answered, in the context of having some actual results. To ask it during the voting is a meaningless distraction, which we prohibited after much earlier discussion closely resembling this thread. |
well put |
|
|
|
10/04/2006 01:19:01 PM · #47 |
I don't particularly agree or disagree with the "out-takes rule", but it is a rule. A poll was taken and it seems this is what DPC wanted. So, there ya have it :-)
Although D&L have every right to make this site a monarchy, they do well listening to the users and running this place more like a democracy.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 13:20:23.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2006 11:30:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, it should be called "out-takes or alternates."
The issue is not just one of vote influencing, it is one of fairness to the entries. We have a call for people to post a certain type of photo, with a deadline.
If you miss that and post what you would have entered, you are (literally, in the case of this thread) saying "don't look at the actual entries which were submitted on time, look at me instead!"
If you've already entered, and post an "out-take" then you are essentially asking for everyone to look at your two entries, when everyone else limits themselves to one.
The key is to let people concentrate on the entries during the voting period, without selfishly calling attention to your photo -- I don't get to specify which is mine, so why should anyone else.
After the voting, post away; that's the time when the question "how would my picture have done" can be answered, in the context of having some actual results. To ask it during the voting is a meaningless distraction, which we prohibited after much earlier discussion closely resembling this thread. |
I agree with you...mostly.
I agree with the fact that the title is stupid and attention-grabbing. I only wrote it because I was frustrated right after the deadline and wanted opinions. In reality I am in no way an attention-getter or a rebel, which is why I took down the actual image from the thread.
I never intended this thread to be a rallying cry for people who've had this happen before, because I was not aware that this had happened before. I am not arrogant, I'm just still a newbie. That being said, I would never say "look at mine and not yours" and I consider it rude that that would be said about me. I apologize for not realizing the severity of rule #2 and I will make sure that I wait until after the voting is over in the future, but I was under the impression that this site was for presenting and learning, not harsh words and backlash. Therefore, I apologize for any actual wrong-doing or discourtoesy that I may have done, but I do not apologize for people being rude and hurtful.
I was under the impression that humans were allowed to make mistakes, but apparently THAT rule doesn't apply here.
Message edited by author 2006-10-04 23:31:45. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 12:04:21 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
I was under the impression that humans were allowed to make mistakes, but apparently THAT rule doesn't apply here. |
Sure it does!
Nobody thinks that you personally intended to be rude or selfish, but this just triggered a rehash of an old issue. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 01:00:33 AM · #50 |
| I left you a post Blue Moon |
|
