Deterring Illegal Entries - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/23/2004 10:38:31 AM · #1

As a deterent I suggest that a photographer's "Ave Vote Received" in their profile be reduced to reflect all votes cast on any DQ'ed photo were zero, thereby reducing the average significantly.
Another step in deterrance would be to list a DQ'ed photo in the table of Challenge Entries in their profile with an Ave Vote of zero and a " - " in the last 5 columns.

I don't like the "wall of shame" idea or the gallery of DQed photos. But I am often curious after reading about a DQ in the forums, or after seeing a change in the ribbon winners on the front page. Here's my idea- place the DQ'ed photos after the last place finishers on the Challenge Results pages, thumbnails only (not linked to anything) and omitting the photographer's name but with a few words about why it was DQ'ed (such as outside challenge dates, no response to request for original, illegal editing technique, etc.). Maybe a big black X across the thumbnail.

frisca

Nikon D70

01/23/2004 12:16:51 PM · #2

IF we do this idea of issuing a score of 0 and the dashes in the list of challenge entries with an average vote of 0, I think it should NOT be retroactive. This way, everyone has been warned and they can govern themselves accordingly from now on.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/23/2004 12:30:24 PM · #3

I thought the deterrant of being suspended then kicked out would be enough - is the score that important after you aren't allowed to enter ?

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

01/23/2004 12:39:49 PM · #4

I like the original idea of this thread. Leave the thumbnail, remove any reference to the offender (so they don't get any kicks off seeing their name getting publicity) and 0 the scores so that it drags down their avg score (behind the scenes) but give them the oppportunity to post more. I'd amend this idea to apply only to "cheaters" which one of the site council said that they do distinguish in their comments because they comment on "rules violation" when they can't prove any intent to deceive and "cheating" when they have evidence in hand to prove intent. If someone made an honest mistake (or you can't prove they knowingly submitted false info/image) then just remove the photo and drop all the scores. If the SC believes someone cheated and has proof then put the thumbnail at the end; zero the scores; give no link to the offender and please share with the whole site what caused the DQ (even if its a vague reference to how the submitter lifted the photo from another site or how they edited the EXIF). That would allow us to see the images that were DQ'd without anyone having to be any more publically chastised than occurs now when their photo is totally dropped. Then again maybe this is just my voyeuristic sense of excitement coming out and wanting to see who did what.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/23/2004 01:04:32 PM · #5

As a member of the Site Council, I can say that none of these suggestions are likely to occur.

For some time now, the issue of what to do about disqualified entries has been discussed in the Site Council forum. All of the ideas listed here have been discussed at length. Factoring in a a score of zero for a DQ'd entry. Giving DQ'd entries a score half a point below the last place entry. Having a wall of shame. Listing DQ'd entries in the user's profile with the reason for the disqualification. You name it, it's been discussed.

However, the majority of the SC have various reasons against these suggestions. They vary from "a new user who wasn't familiar with the rules would have a very hard time raising their average if they had a '0.000' to deal with" to "that just promotes negativity and we should focus on the positive". Even variations on the concepts like "how about the first DQ has no score penalty?" have been discussed.

Personally, I feel that there should be more of a consequence to violating the rules than there is now. As an analogy to the "penalty" for being DQ'd for cheating, someone caught shoplifting would simply be asked to return the item they were caught stealing and not return to the store for two weeks. If you were just DQ'd for a rules violation, you would be simply asked to return the item, but feel free to continue shopping. That's it. If that was the only consequence for shoplifting in the real-world, how wide-spread do you think shoplifting would be? The reason it isn't a big problem is because there are serious ramifications to being caught.

A few days ago, I privatley suggested to Langdon that the number of disqualifications should be listed in a user's profile. Yesterday, somebody suggested the same thing in one of the DQ topics. Last night, a Site Council-only poll was put up by the admins asking if we should simply display the number of disqualified entries in a user's profile. By a majority vote, the SC said NO (at a 2-to-1 ratio). So it is unclear what to expect to change in terms of how DQ's are handled in terms of "penalties" or anything that might negatively impact those who have been DQ'd.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 14:14:44.

Canon EOS-20D

01/23/2004 01:11:58 PM · #6

Originally posted by EddyG:

As an analogy to the "penalty" for being DQ'd for cheating, someone caught shoplifting would simply be asked to return the item they were caught stealing and not return to the store for two weeks. If you were just DQ'd for a rules violation, you would be simply asked to return the item, but feel free to continue shopping. That's it. If that was the only consequence for shoplifting in the real-world, how wide-spread do you think shoplifting would be? The reason it isn't a big problem is because there are serious ramifications to being caught.

Actually, that is exactly how it works for a good deal of time, they return the goods and leave the store. Not all shoplifters go straight to jail and shoplifting is a much bigger problem than you'll ever realize without working in assets protection or something similar. The thing is, despite the shopper having violated rules, there are still other rules and factors to be taken into consideration. You don't get to just yank the items out of their hands, take their picture for the wall and banish them to jail for life.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/23/2004 01:31:11 PM · #7

Originally posted by EddyG:

The majority of retail loss is not due to shoplifting by customers, it is due to employee theft. The potential consequences of criminal prosecution AND job loss are not an effective deterrent. I'm not sure that increasing the penalties for cheating here would prove any more effective.

I do not believe that fear of prosecution is the only reasons that shoplifting is not rampant, most people don't steal because stealing is wrong.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/23/2004 01:32:25 PM · #8

The point I was trying to make with my analogy wasn't about how wide-spread or non-widespread shoplifting is, it was about the fact that laws (or in DPC's case, rules) should have measureable consequences in order to have a deterrent effect. A store owner may not call the police when they catch an underage shoplifter, but they are likely to call their parents, who with any luck, will dole out an appropriate punishment for their "deviant" child.

Perhaps I should have used a crime other than shoplifting to better illustrate my point if shoplifters are often let go without punishment.

Perhaps my analogy is flawed. People speed and run red lights all the time, and there are "laws" against that.

Maybe the majority of the SC is right and the best course of action is to just continue to sweep the DQ's under the rug like they never happened.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 13:35:53.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/23/2004 01:39:46 PM · #9

Some DQs will result from flagrant and deliberate disregard of the rules, others from ignorance, as they have in the past. If we compare the gist of debates on this subject in the forums and the disposition of the site's policies, there appears to be an overwhelming consensus to apply the same measure to all paticipants. In order to insure that reasonable (thus the revisiting of respective circumstances by council and admins) equity is attempted, if not achieved.

If both flagrant and repeated offenders and those who may have acted merely neglectfully are to be treated the same, we should not, IMHO, make shame and/or excessive severity part of the consequences.

Oddly, some glee and delight seems to accompany a desire to see certain participants, possibly, unduly. punished. All we really need to pursue and encourage though to achieve the objective we want to achieve, is due process.

Message edited by author 2004-01-23 13:45:03.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

01/23/2004 02:16:51 PM · #10

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Oddly, some glee and delight seems to accompany a desire to see certain participants, possibly, unduly. punished.

For my part I would like to see a differentiation between DQ's based on mistakes and those generated by flagarant attempts to deceive. One member of the SC said that they already do this in their posts/correspondence when they refer to DQ's based on "rules violations" and those that are based on "cheating". Somehow this doesn't seem to be the prevalent attitude on the site but it is one to which I subscribe. I'm not supporting penalizing those who, through ignorance or equipment failure, get DQ'd once here or there. I am all for seeing a different measure meted out to those who consistently or flagarantly flaunt the rules in an attempt to misuse a community where people seem to tend to act in good faith towards each other (I know that I rate photos based on my evaluation of them as I think most people do; not based on how mine is doing and whether I think I can improve my chances by torpedoing a different photo as I figure someone might do if he/she were willing to cheat). I would also like to be able to see the photos regardless of why they were DQ'd but to save any public humiliation they could simply not be linked back to their submitter. To round out this idea, if the submitter was determined by the SC to be a willful cheater rather than someone who just happened to run afoul of the rules, then he/she should get 0's for the competition and have that averaged into his/her score while someone who simply didn't know the batteries on their camera ran out or who didn't think to check the date/time on the camera before every shoot would just have the whole challenge attempt expunged from the record so that they didn't get 0's nor did the challenge count against them in any way.

Well, that's just a more involved process but it seems like the hardest part (the deliberation of who willfully chose to disregard the rules) is already being done and the SC feels that they are fairly accurate in their estimation of who's a cheater and who is simply forgetful or unlucky. If no one else is interested I don't really care all that much but it is somewhat frustrating to find out that a shot was DQ'd and not remember it or know what it looked like or how I scored it. Sometimes I have rated a photo highly (8, 9 or 10) and yet I requested a DQ because I might think I saw some effect that gave it away or the only way I might know to reproduce an image would involve methods beyond the rules of the site and I figure that is why the SC and the Admins have the rules stated as they are: vote as though it doesn't break the rules and then request a DQ if you want.

I'm just concerned that anyone think I'm bloodthirsty to get someone who just forgot to change batteries or something.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

01/23/2004 02:37:56 PM · #11

I think a lot of problems would be solved if the results were delayed for 5 days but also keeping them up for a week as it is now. Everyone would have time to submit their proof. The sc will have time to verify them and most importantly, the true winners will be displayed on the front page. The members will not be able to see one picture put up and then replaced after a few days. The people that break the rules on purpose will not get to see their picture on the front page. That should discourage anyone that enters an illegal picture just to see if they can sneak it by. The people that did not cheat but broke a rule will not have to feel bad about other members accusing them of cheating. In fact, this could solve a lot of problems created by the current policy of posting the "winners" that night. Yes. The winners would have to wait to see their pictures displayed, but after a few weeks have passed and eveyone has gotten used to the delay, no one will notice the difference that much.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

01/23/2004 03:07:26 PM · #12

Would be even better if we had a system that checked out submissions as they were placed then we would know that everything that was being voted on was legal and there would be no need for a DQ button.

This would also mean that if there was a problem caused by equipment failure and you had submitted early, then you would have the chance to submit again.

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

01/24/2004 12:27:18 AM · #13

Originally posted by Gordon:

I thought the deterrant of being suspended then kicked out would be enough - is the score that important after you aren't allowed to enter ?

If suspensions and banishment are the current policy it needs to be stated clearly and publicized to be an effective deterent. Nothing done privately is really much of a deterent, at least not for anyone other than the person punished.

The profile of anyone "kicked out" should be removed.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/24/2004 12:40:01 AM · #14

I think we are lumping all DQed shots in one basket & I think that is unfair. I think the way things are now is the best. Why should this site change based on those who get DQed for cheating? I say we ignore it & go about our business.

For the most part, folks are honest & participate bc they have fun & enjoy the way the site is run. The admins & SC guys are doing a great job of keeping things the way they are, nice & positive. Let's not mar all the good stuff about this site by obsessing about the few bad apples that continue to cheat. Maybe I'm worng, but I can;t imagine cheating, repeatedly, getting busted for it & then continuing to participate in future challenges. I believe that those that have knowingly cheated, that have been exposed by the SC, will voluntarily 'banish' themselves.

A wall of Shame is great for only one thing- quenching our curiousity (I include myself in this) & adding a bit of negativity to a VERY positve place.

Message edited by author 2004-01-24 00:41:26.

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

01/24/2004 01:10:56 AM · #15

Rooster, I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. In my second proposal there was a way to tell the reason for the DQ so people would be able to differentiate between an innocent mistake and willfull disregard of the rules. My sense is that there is a feeling among the SC and the community as a whole that the status quo, at least up until the recent crackdown, was not working as well as it should. So "ignore it & go about our business" may not be the best way to go. Please don't equate some good intentioned suggestions to deter violations as "adding a bit of negativity".

More deterence should result in less illegal entries, which in turn would ease the burden on the SC. I certainly don't expect them to go back and apply any new efforts to past challenges.

justincg

Sony DSC-P92

01/24/2004 01:33:49 AM · #16

i have to aggree with Rooster on this.. why should the people that have made honest mistakes suffer to the same extent that the ones that actually cheated.. you know..

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/24/2004 01:36:33 AM · #17

Originally posted by coolhar:

Coolhar,

it was not my intention to imply that the mere suggestion is adding a bit of negativity but rather highlighting those that cheat would do that. I think this thread & others alike are needed & valuable as are the suggestions made in them. I think dialogue is ALWAYS important.
My apologies for what you read into my statement, I did not intend to do that. I also did read both your suggestions & am sorry for not acknowledging that in my post. My statement of lumping everyone together was more general than specific to what you wrote. Most people that posted did not make that distinction & most people, including myself, also did not in other threads.
No hard feelings (I hope)! :)