| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2006 09:46:49 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Good work Langdon and the SC.
A proportionate penalty and very well handled. No need to form a linching mob, lets just get on with enjoying DPC and WPL. |
I don't think we know what penalty was handled out so I don't see how one can judge if it's proportionate or not. Whatever it is they cheated in over 30 challenges which IF true (and we haven't heard their side) would constitute major cheating, IMO.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 09:48:00 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Falc:
Good work Langdon and the SC.
A proportionate penalty and very well handled. No need to form a linching mob, lets just get on with enjoying DPC and WPL. |
I don't think we know what penalty was handled out so I don't see how one can judge if it's proportionate or not. Whatever it is they cheated in over 30 challenges which IF true (and we haven't heard their side) would constitute major cheating, IMO. |
they already said, it was 1 month.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 09:48:59 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Falc:
Good work Langdon and the SC.
A proportionate penalty and very well handled. No need to form a linching mob, lets just get on with enjoying DPC and WPL. |
I don't think we know what penalty was handled out so I don't see how one can judge if it's proportionate or not. Whatever it is they cheated in over 30 challenges which IF true (and we haven't heard their side) would constitute major cheating, IMO. |
they already said, it was 1 month. |
Ah ok. Well that's hardly proportionate, IMO. Frankly, I'm shocked.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 09:58:52 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
they already said, it was 1 month. |
Well that's hardly proportionate, IMO. |
That's about the same penalty you'd face for submitting four consecutive illegal entries. We were aiming for, "Knock it off," not "Don't come back."
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 21:59:35. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 10:17:55 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by wavelength:
they already said, it was 1 month. |
Well that's hardly proportionate, IMO. |
That's about the same penalty you'd face for submitting four consecutive illegal entries. We were aiming for, "Knock it off," not "Don't come back." |
Obviously you guys can hand out whatever penalties you feel like but I think it's very soft. "Knock it off" for cheating in 34 challenges seems to me like it wasn't that big a deal in your eyes.
Btw, in the Rikki case how much did those votes deemed illegal effect his score? I recall you saying the net results were very neglible at the time but he got the death sentence for it and all of his images were DQed even though they legally met the submission requirements.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 22:18:53.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 10:22:48 PM · #106 |
20-40 friend votes per challenge are an order of magnitude more serious than 4 or 5. We sometimes have cases of single friends or relatives voting up their buddies too, and we generally send warnings for those. This fell somewhere in between. Oh, and Rikki didn't get the death sentence- he got a longer banishment. We're trying to encourage fair play here. If we can do that without a firing squad, great. Those who don't learn their lesson get a lifetime ban.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 22:27:02. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 10:44:18 PM · #107 |
| Encouraging fair play by being lenient on dishonest players is the same as punishing honest players. You can describe it anyway you like. But that's what it amounts to. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 10:53:00 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
20-40 friend votes per challenge are an order of magnitude more serious than 4 or 5. We sometimes have cases of single friends or relatives voting up their buddies too, and we generally send warnings for those. This fell somewhere in between. |
Well back then you said the votes had a neglible impact on Rikki's scores however now I can't find that thread. Granted 4-5 votes is very neglible but it still seems such a big difference in penalty when the intent in both situations was deemed the same. Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse. I'm at least glad that swifter measures were taken in the WPL so maybe that will help act as a deterrent for the league in general. To me the intent is the big issue here not how good one is at executing it.
Edited for my sloppy spelling.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 22:54:11.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:23:23 PM · #109 |
FWIW, if I found the right thread, and if I remember correctly, Rikki was banned for 1 year.
That's hardly the dpc death penalty.
There is at least one user (with several names) that has had the dpc death penalty.
There's a difference.
I saw somewhere up there the confusion between banned and suspended. While the two can be interchanged, I've found that SC usually uses suspended when only certain privileges (PM's, forum posting, submitting, etc) are blocked. Banned is usually a "don't log in here at all" kind of thing. That is not always the case, and in practice, the terms are basically the same. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 05:03:18 PM · #110 |
Yesterday evening I got a PM from Southern Gentleman and I have to say that I was surprised,- very surprised. He told me that Langdon had suspended me from DPC for one month, but I hadn’t got any notice from Langdon about suspension (and still haven't got any). Firstly I asked myself on what reason I had been suspended if it was the fact. I thought it had to be some mistake and wrote PM to Langdon and also to Scott about this matter.
Now I still haven’t heard a word from Langdon about suspension and no explanations. I find it very strange to hear the news that I have been suspended from some members, but have not been informed of it by the owner of the site or the SC. Later last evening I got an answer from Scott, he forwarded to me an email from Langdon where he said that I and some other members had been suspended. After that answer I was not only surprised, but also furious and really hurt, because I am accused of cheating and that is the first time in my whole life that I have been suspended from what I take part in on that ground or in any other negative grounds for that matter.
I admit that in the challenges during the WPL2 me and my team mates knew some of each others photos (I know for sure it’s also the real thing in some other teams), but I haven’t seen any rule that forbids that. And I want to state very clearly that we did not see each other’s photos so we could give them the highest votes, the reasons were mainly two: 1. We sometimes helped each other to choose the best photo from two, three or more photos to upload in a challenge. 2. Some of us sometimes went togethter to take photos. I haven’t seen any rule that forbids that.
But I have seen a rule that firbids “any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph” and I have respected that rule in my opinion. I voted for these photos as I always vote for all other photos i.e. what I think they deserve. In these challenges I gave my team mates’ photos votes from 5 to 10, and although some of them got high scores from me it is necessary to bear in mind that these specific photos are very good and ended up in top 10 (and are still in top 10 although my votes have been taken away).
I am not perfect rather than anybody else but cheating is against my conviction, so I feel that I have a clean conscience in this matter. I have not on purpose made “any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph”. I decided to write about this here because I won’t take such accusations of fraudulent behaviour with silence. On the other hand, if you have read my words and are still going to judge me guilty of doing something wrong here, which was not my intention, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 05:40:25 PM · #111 |
My photo has gone from 6th to 5th in the Free Study XIII and 5th is now 6th.
Is this a result of votes being removed / recalculated?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 05:40:51 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Brin:
But I have seen a rule that firbids “any attempts to alter the point totals in any way for any photograph” and I have respected that rule in my opinion. I voted for these photos as I always vote for all other photos i.e. what I think they deserve. In these challenges I gave my team mates’ photos votes from 5 to 10, and although some of them got high scores from me it is necessary to bear in mind that these specific photos are very good and ended up in top 10 (and are still in top 10 although my votes have been taken away). |
There is no rule against sharing photos with teammates off site or whatever. A lot of teams do this. But honestly, I think the best option when you know to whom a particular photo belongs is to refrain from voting on it altogether.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 05:48:30 PM · #113 |
I am also one of the banned members.
What makes me so mad is that I was not given any explanation on this whole deal, although sending emails to SC about it 3 times before I sent a message to scalvert gettin his side of the whole thing.
I think that this whole bann is rediculous and a blatant witchhunt that was started by someone that just doesnt like my team competing this competition. I voted fairly on every challenge that I voted on. I would never give a lower vote becouse it was someone in a competing team and the worst thing I might have done was to give a photo that I helped create a better score, probably not even thinking about it myself. Now being asked by members here that I should be banned permanently just makes me sad.
I hope that people can see that this whole ordeal is not really right.
Brothers vote eachothers pictures higher when they recognice their styles. People vote their friends higher when they recognice their styles. Husbands and wifes do the same thing. Its hard not to do it becouse it is an emotional thing. You want your loved ones and your friends to do good. So of course you give them your best shot.
I really did not think that this was forbidden in any way. The site rules state that it is illegal to try and innfluence the voting patterns in a anormal way. SO a 10 to any picture can be illegal, so can a 1 be illegal.
Did I do something illegal? I don't believe in it. Scalvert tells me I am a cheater. People in here will call me a cheater, but I will only say this once, and I ask you not to forget it.
I am not a cheater |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 05:55:01 PM · #114 |
| As I'm not on any WPL team (and as a member of Team Suck, I don't think anyone would complain if we voted each other LOWER), I'd offer this one piece of advice - if you know whose picture it is, have seen it before a challenge starts (or during a challenge), don't vote on it. Comment if you like, but then hit the arrow to move to the next one instead of a vote. I'd also suggest that *just to be on the safe side*, don't vote on teammates' pictures if you know it's theirs, no matter how - even if it's just because you recognize their style. This will only make your teammate's picture have a few less votes and will prevent any headaches or misunderstandings in the future. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:00:50 PM · #115 |
I am also one of the banned members. In matter of fact to be clear about this 6 banned members, then 5 of them was from my WPL team, thats very fishy IMO and smells like some kind of witchhunt(call it conspiracy you sinless people out there)
But I think I was not cheating, I helped out and also got help from my team members in choosing pictures and even create them. Sharing hints about post progress and etc etc.
If the Site council look at me as cheater, so be it and they can punish me. I know better.
Worst of it all, is when this investigation was in progress no one bother to contact us to let us explain it in privacy, now it is all in the open and it would look bad for the Site Council to withdraw their decision and also make a bad exsample if we would prove them wrong.
I ditto to brin and Bolti´s replies and say it alot and proud.
I am not a cheater |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:01:13 PM · #116 |
Yeah, well thats where the problem is.
As a result of this descicion from the site council.
5 of the Ninja Newbies have been banned from DPC for 1 month.
5 of the Ninja Newbies have been banned from WPL for 3 seasons. Thats a year long ban. So I believe there wont be more challenges for us.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 18:06:20. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:05:28 PM · #117 |
Hmm. To be honest, I can only just about see how helping each other to create photos might be ok. To actually go on and vote on those created photos, in the full knowledge that they belong to your teammates, is bound to lead to trouble.
Even the most saintly people would struggle to maintain objectionality knowing which photos would bring there team in the best result. Even if that's only a 1 point nudge on average, it's still affecting the end result. I guess that's similar to what Langdon discovered and therefore why the team members got banned.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:06:21 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by mist:
Hmm. To be honest, I can only just about see how helping each other to create photos might be ok. To actually go on and vote on those created photos, in the full knowledge that they belong to your teammates, is bound to lead to trouble.
Even the most saintly people would struggle to maintain objectionality knowing which photos would bring there team in the best result. Even if that's only a 1 point nudge on average, it's still affecting the end result. I guess that's similar to what Langdon discovered and therefore why the team members got banned. |
I completely agree here
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 18:06:48. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:09:46 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by mist:
Hmm. To be honest, I can only just about see how helping each other to create photos might be ok. To actually go on and vote on those created photos, in the full knowledge that they belong to your teammates, is bound to lead to trouble.
Even the most saintly people would struggle to maintain objectionality knowing which photos would bring there team in the best result. Even if that's only a 1 point nudge on average, it's still affecting the end result. I guess that's similar to what Langdon discovered and therefore why the team members got banned. |
I completely agree here |
Agree and agree, but when I agree to that, then I am making the state that I will not vote again to people that I know or are in my team, so by voting my team member even with 1,5 or 10 is on very GRAY AREA according to what you folks are saying |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:11:22 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by russi:
Agree and agree, but when I agree to that, then I am making the state that I will not vote again to people that I know or are in my team, so by voting my team member even with 1,5 or 10 is on very GRAY AREA according to what you folks are saying |
No, I don't think that there's any grey area. If you know a particular photograph, then don't vote on it AT ALL. It's fairly cut and dried. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:11:50 PM · #121 |
Gray area, but not the Cheating area... I would have accepted to get a email stating. Stop doing this. Or a message about it in the WPL rules. Becouse this is not stated anywhere in any rules.
Its just a gray area. Is it cheating? |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:19:34 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Bolti:
Gray area, but not the Cheating area... I would have accepted to get a email stating. Stop doing this. Or a message about it in the WPL rules. Becouse this is not stated anywhere in any rules.
Its just a gray area. Is it cheating? |
I'm not giving an opinion one way or another, but look at it from the perspective of those on the outside: You knew it was your teammate's photo, you gave it a really high mark, and doing so looks bad. Period, end of story, finito. You can explain it until the cows come home and you're blue in the face and it's probably not going to make much difference because no matter what the reason is, even if you had only the purest of intentions, the fact remains that you voted your buddy's photo high and had a vested interest in your buddy's high score.
You can't just think about it in terms of "I did not cheat because of X Y and Z". We can't know what you're thinking. You need to consider how anything you do may appear to an outsider looking in. And frankly, it looks bad.
Edited to let  wavelength know that he doesn't need to tell me to go study yet again because that's what I'm about to do right now! :P
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 18:21:25.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:19:56 PM · #123 |
| I really can not see why you would cheat. How can it possibly be satisfying to win knowing that it was not deserved. Especially as there are no prizes it seems daft. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:21:18 PM · #124 |
Everyone keeps stating that you shouldn't vote on someone's photo if you know who the photographer is, but that is not written in the rules. I think it's ignorant to just assume that everyone on this site would just know that automatically.
I personally feel this ban is unfair and that the treatment of these people as if they've gone and murdered someone really shows the downfall of this site.
I used to love being here, now it's always negative. People act as if a photography site needs to be taken as seriously as real life. Lighten up people.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 06:21:50 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Bolti:
... the worst thing I might have done was to give a photo that I helped create a better score, probably not even thinking about it myself. Now being asked by members here that I should be banned permanently just makes me sad.
...
Brothers vote eachothers pictures higher when they recognice their styles. People vote their friends higher when they recognice their styles. Husbands and wifes do the same thing. Its hard not to do it becouse it is an emotional thing. You want your loved ones and your friends to do good. So of course you give them your best shot. |
Therein lies the problem. If brothers or husbands/wives were voting each others' entries higher and it was discovered, they would no doubt be penalised in the same way. It isn't considered acceptable to vote up your friends' and loved ones' entries just because they are your friends or loved ones.
That said, permanently banning you and the others seems, to my mind, excessive.
Disclaimer: I am not part of WPL and wasn't affected by the existence of WPL.
Edited second paragraph for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 18:24:03. |
|
