| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2007 10:06:01 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The image was removed from the challenge? I remember my wpl teammate submitting a shot of someone passed out in a bathroom with their arm still tied off after taking a shot of heroin. No removal there.
Anyway, good shot. Nice to see something out of the ordinary and provocative. Should have gone the chopsticks route I guess. |
The image was removed upon my request. There was an insulting comment that I considered too much, bearing in mind my model and other people who helped with this shot could read it in the challenge results. |
So, why not simply ask that the comment be removed as inappropriate? |
He may have thought, justifiably, that the comment was insulting to him and his model, and didn't want it to stand for all time. SC doesn't always agree. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:10:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The image was removed from the challenge? I remember my wpl teammate submitting a shot of someone passed out in a bathroom with their arm still tied off after taking a shot of heroin. No removal there.
Anyway, good shot. Nice to see something out of the ordinary and provocative. Should have gone the chopsticks route I guess. |
The image was removed upon my request. There was an insulting comment that I considered too much, bearing in mind my model and other people who helped with this shot could read it in the challenge results. |
I can't say I have a lot of respect for that. The image was extremely provocative which you had to know going in. Putting it out there to shock/offend/educate/motivate/etc but not being able to stomach an equal and opposite reaction isn't fair play in my book. It cuts both ways. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:10:06 AM · #28 |
Hi Alfredo, I'm really sorry to see that your image was removed. It definitely depicts a reality, whether or not we choose to acknowledge its existance.
I'm sure that the awareness campaign will be a success and don't be dissapointed, please continue sharing your excellent work.
Best regards,
Roberto
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:10:58 AM · #29 |
Great photo. All the negative posts are just wastes of time.
How did this photo do in the challenge? I would love to see the distribution of votes.
JM |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:15:01 AM · #30 |
I like it. I can see that as an advert against drug use.
The kid looks middle class to me so not what you would consider the main users of hard drug abusers and looks like hes trying to imitate the bigger kids, or the guys on tv or whatever by being 'cool'. Almost like singing into a hairbursh... but with drugs and pencils.
Also a nice touch was the kid doing it on top of his school book. whether deliberate or not I like the symbolism.
Great work. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:27:31 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Tez:
The kid looks middle class to me so not what you would consider the main users of hard drug abusers |
I would not be too sure of middle class kids not using drugs. Quoting from the OP:
"If you think this could never happen to your child, think again!!"
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:39:11 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I like it. I can see that as an advert against drug use.
The kid looks middle class to me so not what you would consider the main users of hard drug abusers and looks like hes trying to imitate the bigger kids, or the guys on tv or whatever by being 'cool'. Almost like singing into a hairbursh... but with drugs and pencils.
Also a nice touch was the kid doing it on top of his school book. whether deliberate or not I like the symbolism.
Great work. |
When I was at school, many years ago, in small town Scotland, the only people who could regularly afford hard drugs went to the more expensive, private schools. At our cheapo state school, we could only afford the cheap stuff. So the heroin dealers only bothered to hang around the expensive schools where the rich kids wanted to take stupid risks and we got the lower grade drug dealers.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:41:53 AM · #33 |
Yes I know I was generalising and being stereotypical and myopic and plenty more things besides, but the general social connection with drug abuse is someone of lower socio-economic grouping.
Also, i made a point of saying abuse and not 'use' as they're very different things.
I've known doctors on cocaine and hobos on heroin so yes, it takes all kinds.
But for the record, you were right in pointing that out. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:03:10 AM · #34 |
For me, this image isn't a question of how good it is, whether or not it's artistic, or whether or not shock value has merit as an awareness campaign. To me, it breaks (or at least tiptoes the line of) the registered user agreement. Now that the context of the image is clear, probably everyone will disagree with me, but hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, it was in violation ... in my opinion.
(yes, i know there are about 1,000,000 images that have been allowed in the past which also seem to break this agreement ... no need to link to them)
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:13:03 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by hopper:
For me, this image isn't a question of how good it is, whether or not it's artistic, or whether or not shock value has merit as an awareness campaign. To me, it breaks (or at least tiptoes the line of) the registered user agreement. Now that the context of the image is clear, probably everyone will disagree with me, but hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, it was in violation ... in my opinion.
(yes, i know there are about 1,000,000 images that have been allowed in the past which also seem to break this agreement ... no need to link to them)
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste. |
Which part of that do you think this image violates?
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:18:49 AM · #36 |
yeh.... they are the ones who can afford the good stuff
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Originally posted by Tez:
The kid looks middle class to me so not what you would consider the main users of hard drug abusers |
I would not be too sure of middle class kids not using drugs. Quoting from the OP:
"If you think this could never happen to your child, think again!!" |
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:20:41 AM · #37 |
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content ... that ... (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
vii is a stretch
viii is the obvious one (again, in it's original unknown context)
ix is obvious solely by the angry comments it received |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:35:15 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by hopper:
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content ... that ... (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
vii is a stretch
viii is the obvious one (again, in it's original unknown context)
ix is obvious solely by the angry comments it received |
viii is far from obvious. Out of it's intended context, the image neither encourages nor discourages drug use, it merely portrays it. Simply showing something in an image does not imply endorsement.
ix is a matter of the SC and admins' opinions, not the tone of some negative commenters. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:40:43 AM · #39 |
i'm certain you aren't the only one who disagrees with me
i'm ok with that
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by hopper:
4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content ... that ... (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
vii is a stretch
viii is the obvious one (again, in it's original unknown context)
ix is obvious solely by the angry comments it received |
viii is far from obvious. Out of it's intended context, the image neither encourages nor discourages drug use, it merely portrays it. Simply showing something in an image does not imply endorsement.
ix is a matter of the SC and admins' opinions, not the tone of some negative commenters. |
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 11:44:39 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by hopper:
(ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste. |
The US Supreme Court can't even clearly define what meets the bounds of number IX. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 01:04:46 PM · #41 |
 nutzito, I think every person who made condescending comments owes you an apology, though I doubt you'll get them...
OTOH, thank you for attempting to DO something to help society.
Message edited by author 2007-10-24 13:05:52.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 01:09:08 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
nutzito, I think every person who made condescending comments owes you an apology, though I doubt you'll get them...
OTOH, thank you for attempting to DO something to help society. |
Disagree, why should people apologise for expressing their own opinion? |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 01:31:16 PM · #43 |
probably because I get sick & tired of the judgemental crap that occurs here every day. what the hell would be so hard about saying
"well, I don't understand WHY you took the shot, but it is well done technically"
OR
"wow - pretty rough content; I hope you are using it for a good purpose"
OR
any of a thousand other positive statements that don't judge someone else's intention, or insinuate that the submitter will spend eternity in damnation, or ASSume the worst in everyone. Calling someone 'stupid' (for example) doesn't do a damn thing to help the submitter learn / improve their shot - and is the stuff I believe warrants an apology.
btw - not cursing @ you Simms, and no offense meant. I don't have a problem with anyone giving constructive criticism (could sure use some of that myself! LOL). It is rude and judgemental comments that I have a problem with.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 01:38:10 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
nutzito, I think every person who made condescending comments owes you an apology, though I doubt you'll get them...
OTOH, thank you for attempting to DO something to help society. |
Disagree, why should people apologise for expressing their own opinion? |
There's a difference between expressing an opinion and attacking someone.
It's not about what someone's opinion is, it's how they get it across. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 01:57:55 PM · #45 |
Some people seem to think that by ignoring an unpleasant issue you can make it go away. So they don't tell their children about drugs in the hope they will never be affected by them. They don't tell them about sex in the hope they won't have it. etc. I don't think this strategy works (And statistics show it doesn't. Teen pregnancies are far more common among kids who had abstinence only sex education, for example.).
Keeping information about drugs, sex and other potentially harmful things from your children makes them extremely vulnerable. You don't want the first thing they hear about drugs to be from the guy in the street offering an "amazing experience with no risk at all". I think I remember a campaign that said something like "Talk to your kids about drugs before someone else does.". I think this is the strategy that will best protect them. Tell them about these things. And be honest. Explain to them why some people take drugs and what their effects are. And by being honest I mean that you should also tell them about the "benefits" of the drugs. Yes, they do make you feel good for a few moments. The problems come afterwards and they outweigh the small pleasure by far (if you do not acknowledge the "benefits" and tell your kid it's all bad, bad, bad then someone will later be able to tell them "No, no, no, your parents lied to you. It feels good. Try it." They might try. It will feel good. And when they realize you didn't lie to them about the rest, it's too late...).
And just to cover everything: There was another issue recently mentioned in the forums, people wanting a warning before images with nudity are displayed during voting. Some people said they didn't want their kids to see such pictures. Can somebody please explain to me why children should not be allowed to see naked people? They hopefully know that we are all wearing clothes that cover our bodies, right? What could possibly happen to them if they saw pictures of people without them? |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 02:08:31 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
And just to cover everything: There was another issue recently mentioned in the forums, people wanting a warning before images with nudity are displayed during voting.
Some people said they didn't want their kids to see such pictures. Can somebody please explain to me why children should not be allowed to see naked people? |
A bigger part of that discussion was NSFW issues. You may just want to put a link to that thread in here to prevent this thread from major derailment. :-) |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 02:20:27 PM · #47 |
| The NSFW issue is different one, I would like to focus on the question whether it makes sense to keep the knowledge about the existence of certain things from children. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 02:52:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The NSFW issue is different one, I would like to focus on the question whether it makes sense to keep the knowledge about the existence of certain things from children. |
So start another thread? |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 03:25:36 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
At our cheapo state school, we could only afford the cheap stuff. So the heroin dealers only bothered to hang around the expensive schools where the rich kids wanted to take stupid risks and we got the lower grade drug dealers. |
Clearly an argument for a taxpayer funded program to redistribute the higher quality heroin to the lower economic class. *he says half joking, but wouldn't be surprised to see it become reality*
On the topic: No real passionate opinion either way, other than it arguably seems to violate that ToS rule about drug use. Other than that, I don't think it should have been entered if you weren't willing to stick it out and see it through. |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 03:29:25 PM · #50 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-10-24 15:30:01.
|
|
