Introducing the New Rules - DPChallenge Forums

11/07/2006 05:54:19 AM · #151

I would suggest a bit of re-ordering in this paragraph and a tense change for sense, as follows.

"Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified. ~~All disqualifications are~~ Whether an image should be disqualified will be determined by majority vote of the Site Council whose decision is final."

11/07/2006 05:57:24 AM · #152

You could clarify

"you must:

create your entry from a single capture."

by replacing the word "capture" with "file generated by your camera". This would clarify the position where a camera allows multiple exposures in-camera.

11/07/2006 06:00:18 AM · #153

I would suggest the following amendment for sense.

"You may not:

use software generated distortions to create new effects or radically alter objects."

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 06:00:48.

11/07/2006 06:03:56 AM · #154

I would suggest the following to avoid the RGB smoke issue (and clarify that colour shifting is generally acceptable):

"You may:

saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or some or all of any existing object within it."

11/07/2006 06:24:56 AM · #155

I suggest adding

You may:

"apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry to change or exaggerate existing features, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."

This should clarify that it is possible to exaggerate existing motion blur, but not create it from afresh.

11/07/2006 06:29:49 AM · #156

The recommendations to contact the SC (eg to clarify rules compliance) should include a link to the contact page.

11/07/2006 06:40:44 AM · #157

This sentence does not make much sense:

"If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself. "

I am not sure what the "in addition" bit refers to. Is there an additional penalty for intentional violation? This is not what the sentence says, nor is it clear what the additional penalty might be.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

11/07/2006 06:48:16 AM · #158

"Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified."

When referring to the "spirit of these rules", are you referring to the blurb heading the section?

If so, this imports a dual compliance requirement: you must comply with the letter of the rules set out below, and also the spirit of the rules set out in the blurb. To avoid confusion, this might be made quite explicit.

If not, the "spirit" phrase might best be deleted.

The second iteration of the same rule ("An entry will be disqualified when a majority of the Site Council finds that any of the rules above were not followed.") should be made to conform with the first.

photoslik1967

Nikon D80

11/07/2006 07:08:31 AM · #159

Clarity rather than big changes,yep, I think your purpose was accomplished here. Well done!

11/07/2006 07:27:02 AM · #160

There is a bit of a gap in the difficult section of how to deal with alteration of major elements/change description etc.

Originally posted by New Advanced Editing Rules:

Blurb/Spirit:

"You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture. "

You may not:

"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

There appear to be several rules operating here at once, and each is located in a different part of the rules.

1. The "major elements" rule, rebranded "significant parts", appears still to be substantially in operation.

2. The new rule, "don't change the typical description", appears a little forced, given that reducing a photograph to a description automatically loses something and the reduction will be intensely subjective.

3. There are further reasonably objective clarifications in the "you may" section, eg: "NO new shapes or features may be created in the process" when using filters, effects, dodge & burn.

I think that these rules could be condensed and simplified better. On a quick reformulation, how about deleting "significant parts", "don't change the typical description" and references to "but NO new shapes or features", and inserting:

Overriding Principle

Regardless of how it is done (even if the tool or its use is otherwise allowed under these rules) you must not create new significant features or obscure significant parts of your original capture. The subject matter of the image must remain identifiable and intact.

Subsequent rules could be rephrased to state that they may be used "in a manner that does not breach the overriding principle".

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 07:27:41.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/07/2006 07:48:46 AM · #161

Originally posted by Nitin:

I clearly see RGB smoke as completely different from white smoke. I guess you dont.

Sure I do. I also see B&W photos as completely different from color photos or duotones. If color shifts weren't legal, then those would be DQ'd. If selective color shifts weren't legal, then selective desaturation would be DQ'd.

muckpond

Nikon D200

11/07/2006 08:44:34 AM · #162

Originally posted by new rules:

If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am not sure what the "in addition" bit refers to.

rikki. et al.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Is there an additional penalty for intentional violation? This is not what the sentence says, nor is it clear what the additional penalty might be.

yes, there are additional penalties. the severity of those penalties is based on the severity of the violation, so there's no way to delineate what those might be.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/07/2006 08:53:43 AM · #163

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nitin:
I clearly see RGB smoke as completely different from white smoke. I guess you dont.

Sure I do. I also see B&W photos as completely different from color photos or duotones. If color shifts weren't legal, then those would be DQ'd. If selective color shifts weren't legal, then selective desaturation would be DQ'd.

exactly. i completely hate this image too (well, it's a good image...i just think it's sneaky).

unfortunately, as scalvert said, our entire group has been going 'round and 'round about this image since he and i joined the SC (spring of 2005). i'm not exaggerating.

we just cannot find any way to limit the editing that was done in RGB Smoke without unintentionally limiting other color shifts, such as:

or without limiting selective desaturations:

there's just no way to do it.

eta:
BUT the rule has to be restrictive enough to prevent stuff like this:

hence, this line:

Originally posted by new rules:

use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 08:56:31.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 09:21:37 AM · #164

Originally posted by muckpond:

yes, there are additional penalties. the severity of those penalties is based on the severity of the violation, so there's no way to delineate what those might be.

I figured - but the new rules don't currently say that.

I would suggest:

"The above penalties will be ~~assessed only~~ applied after review by the Site Council. In exceptional circumstances, the Site Council may elect not to apply a penalty.

In the case of a serious rule breach, further penalties may be applied by the Site Council at their discretion.

~~If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself.~~ "

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/07/2006 09:26:08 AM · #165

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

That's not quite accurate either; Drew and Langdon can overrule any decision of the SC at any time.

11/07/2006 09:27:08 AM · #166

Originally posted by muckpond:

we just cannot find any way to limit the editing that was done in RGB Smoke without unintentionally limiting other color shifts,

Then I would suggest again that this is explicitly permitted (and while I hate quoting myself):

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

11/07/2006 09:27:32 AM · #167

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

In the case of a serious rule breach, further penalties may be applied by the Site Council at their discretion.

Serious breaches of the rules aren't always intentional, the text already says we may elect not to apply a penalty, and you haven't spelled out those penalties either. I suggest, "If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself. " ;-)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/07/2006 09:29:59 AM · #168

Originally posted by muckpond:

BUT the rule has to be restrictive enough to prevent stuff like this:

:( No love for the Austin bats... though obviously I agree that the 'bat symbol' shot shouldn't be allowed either. Though all I did was selectively change the brightness of parts of the existing clouds.
I didn't even shift the colour. Didn't add any objects that weren't there, other than some light.

Still waiting for batman

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 09:32:35.

11/07/2006 09:35:33 AM · #169

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would suggest a bit of re-ordering in this paragraph and a tense change for sense, as follows.

"Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified. ~~All disqualifications are~~ Whether an image should be disqualified will be determined by majority vote of the Site Council whose decision is final."

That's not quite accurate either; Drew and Langdon can overrule any decision of the SC at any time.

Cool - the sentences should still be reversed (explain that entries may be disqualified before explaining the mechanism for disqualification) and the tense should be future throughout.

I thought that "final" language might be helpful to indicate that the decision will not be overturned if someone starts a moaning thread - but no great shakes. You could refer to D&L's power to reverse decisions, if this is sufficiently likely that you don't consider the SC's decision (for these purposes) to be final.

11/07/2006 09:39:54 AM · #170

Originally posted by Gordon:

Didn't add any objects that weren't there, other than some light.

Sure you did. You added a bat signal. HOW you did it is irrelevant. Hence, "You may not... use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features"

11/07/2006 09:44:43 AM · #171

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
In the case of a serious rule breach, further penalties may be applied by the Site Council at their discretion.

Serious breaches of the rules aren't always intentional, the text already says we may elect not to apply a penalty, and you haven't spelled out those penalties either. I suggest, "If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself. " ;-)

There is no great magic to my words - your drafting makes better sense than the original draft of the new rules, as does mine.

I don't feel strongly about it, however, I would have thought that you would want this section to be as general and unrestrictive as possible - ie complete discretion when and how to apply further penalties if the SC determines it to be appropriate. Your language restricts it to cases of intentional rule breaking and require the application of the specified penalties in addition to any discretionary penalty. Why fetter yourself in more serious cases?

11/07/2006 09:58:21 AM · #172

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Your language restricts it to cases of intentional rule breaking and require the application of the specified penalties in addition to any discretionary penalty.

That was the intent. Additional penalties (up to a complete site ban) are levied on top of the normal sanctions, and only for intentionally breaking the rules. In some cases (such as three simultaneous entries with the wrong camera date), we may elect to count them as one case or even waive the penalties entirely.

11/07/2006 10:19:31 AM · #173

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

your drafting makes better sense than the original draft of the new rules, as does mine.

Oops - just noticed that you re-suggested the same rule and I misread it. It still makes no sense.

Originally posted by New Editing Rules:

If a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules, the above penalties will be in addition to any assessed for the violation itself. "

The violation is the breach of the rules, and there are specified suspension penalties (the "above penalties"). How can they be additional to any penalty assessed for the "violation itself", when they *are* the penalty for the violation?

I still think my wording is easier to read, but if you want to keep this phraseology and limit your discretion, I would suggest:

"Further penalties may be applied iIf a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules~~, t~~. The above penalties will be in addition to any further penalties ~~assessed~~ applied for the intentional violation ~~itself~~. "

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 10:26:37.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/07/2006 10:57:28 AM · #174

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

"Further penalties may be applied iIf a user is found to have intentionally violated the Challenge Rules~~, t~~. The above penalties will be in addition to any further penalties ~~assessed~~ applied for the intentional violation ~~itself~~. "

How about

"You (the aforementioned intentional rule violator(s)) are to be taken from the place from whence you came, and from thence you are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; for while you are still living your bodies are to be taken down, your bowels torn out and burned before your faces, your heads then cut off, and your bodies divided each into four quarters, and your heads and quarters to be then at Langdon's disposal ; and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls!"

I think it is a bit snappier and makes the point more clear.

Go on - put it in the advanced rules ;)

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 10:58:24.