| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2007 01:10:21 AM · #151 |
Say if the rules get ammended steve... now the term Friend Voting is specificaly mentioned, i will come up with a new name... called, User Biased Voting.... and this will continue to circle... people keep making up new terms for different things. in a years time they will have to ammend everything. because a few members start calling "Selective editing" a new name like,,, "Image Purification" and now its no longer stated in the rules. no one can "image purify"....
my point is, when somthing is described clearly (user bias) and some one changes there name for user to friend... it does not change the rules...
and im sorry i laughed at you steve, i personally dont see your side of the argument, and i am trying..
and im sorry SC. I dont want to start this up again....
No reply needed |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:11:37 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
First, Steve, there is no "crime" here. There is no court of law. There is no evidence. ... |
Oh, there is a crime all right... we are just not privy to it. I got convicted of it an it still is not defined. And there must be a court of law... that court sent me the form email informing me of my sentence though not informing me of the specifics of my crime.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:11:54 AM · #153 |
And one more thing...and this is the kind of pathetic part. Most people here are trying to tell you it is not personal. It is a DPC thing regardless of "who" does it. I don't know you personally, but it seems some people do. And perhaps you should at least consider they are not being mean-spirited or vindictive, but in fact are simply trying to be fair to everyone, including you.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:18:28 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by L2:
I've been offline for most of the day, and am just catching up. I've read the previous threads, and I still don't understand just what it is that you are trying to accomplish here.
... |
Fair enough... I'll tell you what I'm trying to accomplish. It is really quit simple.
I'm questioning a vague DPC law that gets people suspended.
You come up with a new term called "friend voting" that you refuse to define but are perfectly happy handing out sanctions for it. Then threaten people with further sanctions in the announcement if they don't comply. |
It's called "friend voting" because it commonly occurs between friends. The actual infraction is "biased voting." You know this, because it's been pointed out to you by multiple people over the course of months in at least 5 threads that I can recall off the top of my head.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Then, when someone like me question it you respond by suspending me. I get a form letter from the "SC" that says I've been suspended but no specific charges are made. It says to respond if I have questions and I do, asking to identify the charges so I can refute them, but get no response whatsoever.
Is that clear enough for you? |
Except, you didn't question it, did you? You posted a thread and announced that you were engaging in it, without apology. There is a difference between discussion and action.
I've checked your ticket. There has been no such request for additional information as you describe. Perhaps you started a new ticket and it went directly to the Admins? In any event, with regard to refutation, well, let's get serious -- you admitted it.
With that said, if your goal was to question whether friend/biased voting was correct or incorrect, a more productive way to do that might have been to have an open forum discussion about your concerns without actually engaging in it.
It seems to me that you have a point you wished to make, and just went about it in the wrong way. It's clear you don't think biased voting is wrong. There are probably a lot of rules on this site that don't make sense outside the context of anonymous challenges, nonetheless, they are rules and they do have to be followed.
The least productive way to effect a change in the rules is to break them.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:19:35 AM · #155 |
It seems that voting biased for other users is against the voting rules. I did read them to refresh my memory. It is true that it doesn't call this "friend voting" but I think that 'friend voting' and 'biased voting' could be used interchangeably. So, this seems to be the rule that was broken.  mk just explained how you violated this rule. Unless you really thought that user's photos were worth a 10, it seems that the rule has been broken.
:) This is not spoken in anger or sarcasm or in any derogatory way. :) This is just how I see what has unfolded. I guess I'm just not sure how there could be any misunderstandings.
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 01:19:53. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:58:37 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
You come up with a new term called "friend voting" that you refuse to define but are perfectly happy handing out sanctions for it. |
It's called "friend voting" because it commonly occurs between friends. The actual infraction is "biased voting."
Is that clear enough for you? |
maybe you gotta phrase it clearly. stdavidson giving biased voting to _____. that isn't allowed in the rules. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 02:08:49 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
You come up with a new term called "friend voting" that you refuse to define but are perfectly happy handing out sanctions for it. |
It's called "friend voting" because it commonly occurs between friends. The actual infraction is "biased voting."
Is that clear enough for you? |
maybe you gotta phrase it clearly. stdavidson giving biased voting to _____. that isn't allowed in the rules. |
stdavidson giving biased voting to anyone. that isn't allowed in the rules.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 02:51:40 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The key is the evidence. If there had been no evidence the concept certainly WOULD be flawed. A confession does not equal a conviction, a person could be lying. |
Originally posted by rayethier:
Oh but there was evidence, and you see I did not limit my arguments solely to the confession as you seemed to suggest in you previous submission. I do know a few things about the law, having been involved in some aspects of it for 30 some odd years.
Ray |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I wasn't defending Steve. I was just opposing the view that a confession equals guilt. That's why I said IF there wasn't evidence. In this case there was. I don't see what you are trying to prove? |
What I was trying to convey is the fact that you focused primarily on the "Confession" aspect of the argument, without mention of the other factors that came into play. There was no flaw as you seemed to advocate.
While it does remain true that a confession in itself may not withstand the test of time, such is not the case in the present scenario. The man committed a transgression, admitted to flaunting the rules, and a review of available data proved him to be guilty and sanctions doled out... END OF STORY.
I am NOT trying to prove anything, but merely offered a view counter to yours.
Have a great day :O)
Ray |
Ugh this is so rediculous. I already TOLD you I wasn't defending his case, I KNOW there was evidence. Your view is not counter to mine it's counter to a view you think I have which I don't. I think I made it pretty clear I was making a general statement and not speaking just of this case. We have no countering view. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:02:57 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
My official recommendation to you is that unless you are prepared to be suspended because you might have a legitimate question that you want answered, disagree with authority or agree with anything I might say then steer away from this type of discussion all together. |
lol. I found your whole thing quite amusing, sorry to say. I am not scared of disagreeing with authority but that is not the point of this. Like I said, I agreed with you on some points but really, as many others said, why is it fair that only your friends get the "bump" when there are a LOT of underrated photogs out there.
My message... spread the love! lol. We could all use a little chilling out being voting nazis IMO. |
I'm glad that at least one person can find some amusement in my suspention. |
I'm sorry I didn't mean to take amusement at you but rather at the whole situation and the degree to which people get upset. It sucks that you are suspended, you are a great asset to the site. But as others have said, these are the rules we all have to follow and you are no exception.
I don't really understand what is going on here or what you think you are standing for. I sympathize with the feeling that everyone is against you, I got pretty bombarded myself at times in my feminism thread... but really I, and many others, don't get where you stand and why... and the clearer you try and make it the more things go in circles and you ask the same questions that have been answered a million times and the answers get ignored time and time again.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:08:57 AM · #160 |
| if it isn't about trying to win the argument just for the sake of winning, then this entire issue would have been resolved and is probably history by now. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:09:25 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I only care about what is right and wrong. |
Starting now? You were suspended for what you DID, not for expressing an opinion (that the overwhelming majority disagreed with). You weren't suspended before because you weren't caught before. Though you likely would have been caught eventually, the neon sign you set up to declare your illegal activity certainly expedited the process. |
If you really believe what you just said then I got some bridge property in Lake Havasu City I'll sell you cheap.
The one and only reason I was suspended is that I started a discussion that YOU(the SC) disagreed with. No one in their right mind would believe otherwise.
Not only that... I asked for the specifics of my case more than once and have yet to hear back. Why is that? How can I defend myself if you don't even tell me what I did? Where is all the fairness and consideration the SC bragged about before? I see no evidence of it.
Btw, I thought the form email was a nice, anonymous touch. That way no individual has to take responsibility and even no evidence has to be presented. Just suspend the criminal and suspend justice as well. Way to go!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:11:25 AM · #162 |
they already said you were tading 10s with another person. what more do you want really?
I'm begining to think this is some strange social experiment we are all not clued into. A couple of my psych professors pulled that on the class... |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:17:12 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I'm begining to think this is some strange social experiment we are all not clued into. A couple of my psych professors pulled that on the class... |
hehe, I think you may be on to something :-P |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:33:50 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I only care about what is right and wrong. |
Starting now? You were suspended for what you DID, not for expressing an opinion (that the overwhelming majority disagreed with). You weren't suspended before because you weren't caught before. Though you likely would have been caught eventually, the neon sign you set up to declare your illegal activity certainly expedited the process. |
If you really believe what you just said then I got some bridge property in Lake Havasu City I'll sell you cheap.
The one and only reason I was suspended is that I started a discussion that YOU(the SC) disagreed with. No one in their right mind would believe otherwise.
Not only that... I asked for the specifics of my case more than once and have yet to hear back. Why is that? How can I defend myself if you don't even tell me what I did? Where is all the fairness and consideration the SC bragged about before? I see no evidence of it.
Btw, I thought the form email was a nice, anonymous touch. That way no individual has to take responsibility and even no evidence has to be presented. Just suspend the criminal and suspend justice as well. Way to go! |
Ok.. you know.. At first I thought you really didn't "get" it.. then I figured, you're upset, you've been letting this stew since the first time you had objections to the whole process, and are now just playing devil's advocate to get a rise out of everyone.
Now.. man.. I'm really starting to get *worried*. These are not the actions of a sane man. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 03:36:52 AM · #165 |
Well after some consideration I decided to throw my 2ps worth into the ring.
1. On the SC. I think they do a magnificent job in keeping the site running to the exceptional standard that it is. On occasion - and please note I am not refering to this thread they receive dogs abuse for the work they do which - if I was in their position - would probably result in all my toys going out of the pram and me exiting in the hissy fit to end all hissy fits
2. On Stdavidson. During my time at DPC he has been one of the most helpful people I have come across. The time he has given in giving out his free critiques have helped me improve my photography no end (though you may not guess that when you see some of my challenge scores, but that is down to me not him). Do I think he is a fair and honourable man? Unequivically!!!
3. On friend/bias voting....God this is a tricky subject. The longer I am in DPC challenge the more I realise that it is harder NOT to get drawn into this in some ways. I have begun to recognise peoples styles and certainly when people use the same model or area for a photograph then it is impossible NOT to realise 'oh that is one of x's pictures'. I have to be honest and say where I have had contact with people (through things like them giving me help on questions I have raised or getting involved in things like the side challenges) then it seems implausible to suggest that this would not help colour my vision to a degree. I would also add that this would never result in me giving someone a 10 just because I know who they are but it may mean that they get a 6 instead of a 5 - This I hasten to add would not be a conscious decision but certainly a subconscious one. If I did see a photo were I recognised the photographer and I thought it DESERVED a 10 then I would give it to them, because the alternative - not voting - actually would mean that people suffered (in terms of their total average score) for having giving me help or advice in the past.
4. Ribbons. FFS These arent real, they dont get us money, they dont improve our job prospects. Certainly if anyone was getting ribbons and they KNEW this was because of large scale friend rigging then it would certainly be somewhat of a shallow victory and if their ego was so fragile that they need this sort of thing then they have something seriously wrong with them in terms of their psychological make up
5. Solutions. The SC is the SC and I think we need to adhere (though not on occasion without question) to their decisions. I think any large scale vote rigging should be stamped on - HARD. However I think that there also needs to be a bit of recognition from the SC that there will inevitably be a touch of bias in the voting and the occasional high score to boost someones confidence (which can easily get a little bruised in the challenges) is not a bad thing. However I would also suggest that any people who do vote in that matter are probably better advised to do so quietly rather than turning it into a public debate on which the SC may be forced to act
6. Finally, if you agree with me then please vote a 10 for my current image in the WHY challenge cos a 4.83 I could really do with it....Its called............(nah you didnt really think I'd tell you did you?)
Lets love this site for what it is and most of all lets enjoy taking and sharing our photographs together with helping and learning from others
J |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 04:55:57 AM · #166 |
lol. I'll take a couple "friendly" 10s too.
Juuust kidding. Put away the pitforks. ;) |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:10:51 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
It may be amusing, but could still get you suspended if you say the wrong thing. That is a sad reality. |
I don't know about sad. There are many things that can get you "suspended" in real life, as well as DPC. Just ask Imus.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:19:46 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Tell me, PLEASE, what is "friend voting"? What crime did I commit? That is what I'm convicted for yet never confronted with any evidence. |
You and your friend (and we both know who it is so let's not play the clueless game any longer, okay?) traded tens on at least every single entry either of you submitted since last November which is only as long as the system tracks. You didn't vote a single other user that high even half as many times during that period. I know that you are completely capable of understanding the remainder should you choose to do so, so I won't waste my time explaining. |
Waiting for this post to be responded to... puts the sh*t out there to the admitted offender without putting his sh*t out there to all of us. I'll continue to see  stdavidson will reply to this post since he is so desperate for attention, albeit negative.
Does anyone have a smiley banging his head against the wall? That is really what the SC and posters who are trying to explain all this to the offending party are doing. This is trolling at its worst. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:36:07 AM · #169 |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:46:27 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by jonfrommk:
Well after some consideration I decided to throw my 2ps worth into the ring.
1. On the SC. I think they do a magnificent job in keeping the site running to the exceptional standard that it is. On occasion - and please note I am not refering to this thread they receive dogs abuse for the work they do which - if I was in their position - would probably result in all my toys going out of the pram and me exiting in the hissy fit to end all hissy fits
2. On Stdavidson. During my time at DPC he has been one of the most helpful people I have come across. The time he has given in giving out his free critiques have helped me improve my photography no end (though you may not guess that when you see some of my challenge scores, but that is down to me not him). Do I think he is a fair and honourable man? Unequivically!!!
3. On friend/bias voting....God this is a tricky subject. The longer I am in DPC challenge the more I realise that it is harder NOT to get drawn into this in some ways. I have begun to recognise peoples styles and certainly when people use the same model or area for a photograph then it is impossible NOT to realise 'oh that is one of x's pictures'. I have to be honest and say where I have had contact with people (through things like them giving me help on questions I have raised or getting involved in things like the side challenges) then it seems implausible to suggest that this would not help colour my vision to a degree. I would also add that this would never result in me giving someone a 10 just because I know who they are but it may mean that they get a 6 instead of a 5 - This I hasten to add would not be a conscious decision but certainly a subconscious one. If I did see a photo were I recognised the photographer and I thought it DESERVED a 10 then I would give it to them, because the alternative - not voting - actually would mean that people suffered (in terms of their total average score) for having giving me help or advice in the past.
4. Ribbons. FFS These arent real, they dont get us money, they dont improve our job prospects. Certainly if anyone was getting ribbons and they KNEW this was because of large scale friend rigging then it would certainly be somewhat of a shallow victory and if their ego was so fragile that they need this sort of thing then they have something seriously wrong with them in terms of their psychological make up
5. Solutions. The SC is the SC and I think we need to adhere (though not on occasion without question) to their decisions. I think any large scale vote rigging should be stamped on - HARD. However I think that there also needs to be a bit of recognition from the SC that there will inevitably be a touch of bias in the voting and the occasional high score to boost someones confidence (which can easily get a little bruised in the challenges) is not a bad thing. However I would also suggest that any people who do vote in that matter are probably better advised to do so quietly rather than turning it into a public debate on which the SC may be forced to act
6. Finally, if you agree with me then please vote a 10 for my current image in the WHY challenge cos a 4.83 I could really do with it....Its called............(nah you didnt really think I'd tell you did you?)
Lets love this site for what it is and most of all lets enjoy taking and sharing our photographs together with helping and learning from others
J |
1. Of course, I agree. :)
2. I agree with most of this, unequivocally. (Until I looked at his voting patterns, I would have said "fair" as well, but I can't do that now. That is the only word I would remove from that sentence to be able to agree totally.
3. The situation you describe would not be flagged as friend voting. Giving someone 10s across the board, because of who they are, will. Please note, the quality of the shot made no difference. One shot Steve had publically admitted deserved a low vote, yet he still gave it a ten, and I can only infer that it got a ten because of who the photog was. edit After reading what led me to believe this, it may have been he was quoting someone else, but it is difficult to say that. As a result, please do not think that I am saying Steve said he voted low and then gave a 10. (end edit)
4. yes
5. Steve's was not occasional. And, I fully expect that this was more of an "action" to try and get us to change/clarify/reword the rule. However, I can honestly say it would have been much more effective, though not as dramatic, to submit a ticket with a suggested rewording.
6. buhahhahahahahah, in your dreams
:)
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 09:54:51. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:51:10 AM · #171 |
I've got two major beefs with this.
1. We have taken witch hunting to new levels here. This is suppose to be fun and educational. Reading the threads, rules and seeing the suspensions you'd think we are a bunch lying cheating scum. Personally I think DPC is a great and kind community and does not deserve this.
2. In order to be found guilty of this offense, SC has to assume that you voted high on the photos only because of who they were taken by. If I really like the photo my son/daughter/wife/friend took why can't I vote it high? Maybe it has more personal meaning to me then other people. To me the photo is a 10 and in order to find me guilty SC has to say that I truly do not believe the photo deserves a 10, or that the particular photo does not deserve a 10.
So basically, we are hunting down cheaters when in reality it's just people that like a photo for different reasons then others. And after everything, at the end of the day the impact of these votes is statistically insignificant (if you want proof I'll do a write up on it later...).
I see the word bias floating around a lot. We all have bias. Is it fair a lot of people love cats and give any cat photo automatically a high vote? Is it fair that people automatically vote nudity higher or lower? How about flowers, or images that have a lot of editing, or images that are not sharp? It̢۪s perfectly okay if I vote all photos with an American flag low because I disagree with the government, but I can̢۪t vote my wife̢۪s photo high because I love her? Am I the only person that sees the hypocrisy in SC telling us how we can (actually can̢۪t) vote on certain photos?
I'm sorry to all of DPC if it offends you, but if I find the time to vote and I recognize a shot, I'm going to vote how I want on it. If SC wants to say that it's impossible for me to think a photo deserves a high score, they can suspend me or kick me off DPC. And I̢۪m sure now that I̢۪ve said it I̢۪ll be put on the watch list. We can̢۪t stand having any cheaters here!!!
And note: I am not talking about people that share their photo with their DPL team or their buddy list campaigning for higher votes. That breaks the rule of the site that says you have to try to stay anonymous. I̢۪m talking about when you know the photo for other reasons.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:56:36 AM · #172 |
As far as I'm concerned:
I like the rules (written and unwritten) at DPC
I think the rules should be enforced vigerously by SC
I try to follow the rules
I think everyone who participates at this site should try to follow the rules
I forgive mistakes
I skorn intentional violations
Have a good day |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 09:59:28 AM · #173 |
Folks, this is one SC member that has become increasingly frustrated and disappointed at this whole bruhaha.
I'm sure as other SC come on line, they will be posting, if they see the need, but I can honestly say that every concern being brought up has been addressed in the past 24 hours, and I'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over.
Over and out. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:03:15 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I see the word bias floating around a lot. We all have bias. Is it fair a lot of people love cats and give any cat photo automatically a high vote? Is it fair that people automatically vote nudity higher or lower? How about flowers, or images that have a lot of editing, or images that are not sharp? It̢۪s perfectly okay if I vote all photos with an American flag low because I disagree with the government, but I can̢۪t vote my wife̢۪s photo high because I love her? Am I the only person that sees the hypocrisy in SC telling us how we can (actually can̢۪t) vote on certain photos? |
The major distinction I think you must make is the difference between a subjective like or dislike of a particular image and whether your knowledge of the "person" behind the image infiltrates your reasoning.
That is where the unfair bias comes into play. You are taking a photograph, assigning value based on like/dislike of the photographer, so basically it makes the value of the image itself either higher or lower. There is a significant difference between these two concepts. I hope you see that.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:09:16 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
In order to be found guilty of this offense, SC has to assume that you voted high on the photos only because of who they were taken by. If I really like the photo my son/daughter/wife/friend took why can't I vote it high? Maybe it has more personal meaning to me then other people. To me the photo is a 10 and in order to find me guilty SC has to say that I truly do not believe the photo deserves a 10, or that the particular photo does not deserve a 10. |
You shouldn't be afraid to vote a PHOTO whatever you think it's worth. That's what you're supposed to do- judge the quality of the photo! Do not assume you'll get in trouble for that because it's not the case. Bias voting generally results in a clear pattern that few would dispute, and fewer could justify. |
|
