Author | Thread |
|
04/26/2009 12:30:31 AM · #176 |
your intentions are good... her intentions are questionable... and proven so on multiple occasions.
if the guy with a table on the sidewalk, and three half shells asks you to pay to play his game - would you ?
would you trust him and pay to play the tenth time you found out he was lying, and there wasn't any ball under any of the shells ?
Originally posted by zxaar: She good at photography.
And its never late to change ourselves. If she decides to straighten herself and concetrate on what she if good at. I am sure she will have all the success she wants. But it will happen only if she wants it to happen and she is determined enough.
Rose if you are reading it, its never late. |
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 00:31:15.
|
|
|
04/26/2009 12:39:07 AM · #177 |
if you think DPC is too harsh on their members... you have to pay $10 just to get access to post here. and this is what happens when a moderator thinks you broke the rules.
it doesn't matter if you think you broke the rules. it doesn't matter. i'll repeat it doesn't matter what you think.
here at DPC we have 99.5% good people doing good things.
i've been here quite awhile - i saw the original Rose, and all of her incarnations. i have no respect for someone who has no respect for anyone.
|
|
|
04/26/2009 01:23:22 AM · #178 |
I am still going through all the posts in this thread to figure out the damage 'Rose' apparently did to DPC and some of its members. Looks like she was a lot of pain.
But in all fairness, as far as I could read, she never violated any challenge rules. So I think her good work of art should remain, at least the ribbon winners.
I do not think we should let personal issues affect the fairness of process.
ETA: The only challenge rule she may have come close to breaking would be this I think:
- hold more than one DPChallenge account, ask anyone to vote on your behalf, or link to your entry̢۪s voting page.
Was this the case? Did she hold more than one account all at the same time?
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 01:27:00. |
|
|
04/26/2009 01:37:38 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by Prash: I am still going through all the posts in this thread to figure out the damage 'Rose' apparently did to DPC and some of its members. Looks like she was a lot of pain.
But in all fairness, as far as I could read, she never violated any challenge rules. So I think her good work of art should remain, at least the ribbon winners.
I do not think we should let personal issues affect the fairness of process.
ETA: The only challenge rule she may have come close to breaking would be this I think:
- hold more than one DPChallenge account, ask anyone to vote on your behalf, or link to your entry̢۪s voting page.
Was this the case? Did she hold more than one account all at the same time? |
Ever seen a sign in a place of business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."? If your behavior in a store, for example, is so atrocious and disruptive that other customers leave, the management can have you removed from the premises and disallow your return. They have every right to have you removed again, even if your behavior is perfect the next time you visit.
As far as Rose is concerned, her ban is good riddance to bad rubbish, pictures and all. |
|
|
04/26/2009 02:33:07 AM · #180 |
Her entries were removed because they had no right to be entered in the first place, since she was under a permanent ban.
What puzzles me is that on another site she said she'd had to sell her camera gear a year ago. |
|
|
04/26/2009 02:58:27 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: As far as Rose is concerned, her ban is good riddance to bad rubbish, pictures and all. |
Right. Bad rubbish, ok. But bad pictures, I don't think so.
Anyways, now I know, thanks to BeeCee, what she was in violation of. She was under permanent ban, and yet participated as a different user. That way, ok I agree her pictures were removed rightfully.
Regardless, she was a good photographer from DPC standards. Y'all voted her to ribbons not one, but three times. Right? And now all of a sudden she turns a bad photographer too because of her behavior in forums? Meaning had you known it was the same person who wreaked havoc in forums, you would have voted differently and wont have let her win? Sounds hypocritic to me;-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 02:59:39. |
|
|
04/26/2009 09:35:41 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by Prash: Sounds hypocritic to me;-) |
Look. Cut them some slack. When I first came to DPC it really was "She who must not be named". I received subtle threats from SC that I must not talk about this subject. The fact this thread is still open after several days is proof plenty that much has changed at DPC and the SC. |
|
|
04/26/2009 09:56:17 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by vawendy: She did take wonderful photographs, and other than sneaking back in, there was nothing that warranted banning this time around. |
And the Unibomber made very fine, high-quality, handcrafted letter bombs... but that doesn't make it right... :) |
|
|
04/26/2009 10:55:29 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by alanfreed: Originally posted by vawendy: She did take wonderful photographs, and other than sneaking back in, there was nothing that warranted banning this time around. |
And the Unibomber made very fine, high-quality, handcrafted letter bombs... but that doesn't make it right... :) |
Her photos never killed anyone. A better example might be John Wayne Gacy. He made lots of kids laugh with his funny Pogo the Clown get-up. Maybe he shouldn't have been executed and instead let back out to continue doing birthday parties. |
|
|
04/26/2009 11:23:13 AM · #185 |
LOL...ask anyone to vote on your behalf
Does this mean "ask anyone to vote HIGH on your behalf"? or....is the rule broken if you simply point out which photo is yours to your buddies?
Also...the entries she put in at any point AFTER she was permantly banned should be thrown out....all other entries before the permanant band should stand....IMO of course.
Originally posted by Prash: I am still going through all the posts in this thread to figure out the damage 'Rose' apparently did to DPC and some of its members. Looks like she was a lot of pain.
But in all fairness, as far as I could read, she never violated any challenge rules. So I think her good work of art should remain, at least the ribbon winners.
I do not think we should let personal issues affect the fairness of process.
ETA: The only challenge rule she may have come close to breaking would be this I think:
- hold more than one DPChallenge account, ask anyone to vote on your behalf, or link to your entry̢۪s voting page.
Was this the case? Did she hold more than one account all at the same time? |
|
|
|
04/26/2009 12:35:50 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by kenskid: LOL...ask anyone to vote on your behalf
Does this mean "ask anyone to vote HIGH on your behalf"? or....is the rule broken if you simply point out which photo is yours to your buddies? |
The latter, since you are violating the anonymity of the entry. The former point I see as a reasonably-derived assumption, given that few folks are so dense as to encourage people to give low votes to their photo.
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 12:36:15. |
|
|
04/26/2009 12:52:38 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by kenskid: LOL...ask anyone to vote on your behalf
Does this mean "ask anyone to vote HIGH on your behalf"? or....is the rule broken if you simply point out which photo is yours to your buddies? |
The latter, since you are violating the anonymity of the entry. The former point I see as a reasonably-derived assumption, given that few folks are so dense as to encourage people to give low votes to their photo. |
Um, violating the anonymity of your entry to your friends is not against the rules. People do it constantly, in order to get ideas and suggestions for improvement, etc.
It only becomes illegal if said buddies then vote on it in an illegal manner. You're SC, you shouldn't be spreading false information :)
ETA: Of course, outing your entry PUBLICLY, in the forum, would be against the rules.
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 12:55:23. |
|
|
04/26/2009 01:53:40 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy: Um, violating the anonymity of your entry to your friends is not against the rules. People do it constantly, in order to get ideas and suggestions for improvement, etc. |
You're right, that particular activity is OK -- but "encouraging them to vote on it" not so much so.
Message edited by author 2009-04-26 13:54:12. |
|
|
04/26/2009 02:48:34 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Prash: Originally posted by Spazmo99: As far as Rose is concerned, her ban is good riddance to bad rubbish, pictures and all. |
Right. Bad rubbish, ok. But bad pictures, I don't think so.
Anyways, now I know, thanks to BeeCee, what she was in violation of. She was under permanent ban, and yet participated as a different user. That way, ok I agree her pictures were removed rightfully.
Regardless, she was a good photographer from DPC standards. Y'all voted her to ribbons not one, but three times. Right? And now all of a sudden she turns a bad photographer too because of her behavior in forums? Meaning had you known it was the same person who wreaked havoc in forums, you would have voted differently and wont have let her win? Sounds hypocritic to me;-) |
If I recall correctly, part of Rose's original departing hissy-fit was to demand that her photos be removed under threat of lawsuit. So, yes, the photos themselves are tainted by the photographer. Just like I'd never want one of John Wayne Gacy's paintings, not matter how wonderful it was. The artwork is, like it or not and no matter how wonderful, part of the artist and their sick mind. |
|
|
04/27/2009 07:57:28 PM · #190 |
ROFLMAO
Originally posted by Simms: Originally posted by PennyStreet: I think it's a shame. The woman is obviously not well and shouldn't be allowed to continue here but I hope she can keep up with the photography that she obviously enjoys as it may give her an outlet from whatever ails her. |
LOL - as far as I can tell she pretty much kept her nose clean this time. Anyway, I wont keep you, theres a bandwagon I think you need to hop onto. |
|
|
|
04/27/2009 08:50:53 PM · #191 |
The following challenges has been recalculated as a result of the disqualifications. Challenges with disqualifications in the top 10 were recalculated.
- Stock Photos: Cooking
- Silence II
- Apple II
- Post-It Note
- Tilted Horizon
- 100 Years Old
- Remember Those? |
|
|
04/27/2009 09:00:21 PM · #192 |
She was in top 10 in seven challenges??? :-):-) |
|
|
04/27/2009 09:56:40 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by soup: your intentions are good... her intentions are questionable... and proven so on multiple occasions.
if the guy with a table on the sidewalk, and three half shells asks you to pay to play his game - would you ?
would you trust him and pay to play the tenth time you found out he was lying, and there wasn't any ball under any of the shells ?
Originally posted by zxaar: She good at photography.
And its never late to change ourselves. If she decides to straighten herself and concetrate on what she if good at. I am sure she will have all the success she wants. But it will happen only if she wants it to happen and she is determined enough.
Rose if you are reading it, its never late. | |
Well this is pretty much a human's nature. Not to be duped again and again.
And I am not suggesting that DPC should allow her back. I think she blew that chance.
But life could be much more than DPC confines.
What I was suggesting is she could make changes in herself and its never late for this.
Obviously if so many people are so much pissed off there is something wrong with her. Its never late to think about it and make changes in life.
She is good at photography and if she makes changes in herself she would get respect.
|
|
|
04/27/2009 10:09:21 PM · #194 |
i hear what you're saying. fixing things that are broken is always a good thing.
a lie is a lie is a lie... trusting a liar is foolish in all respects...
Originally posted by zxaar: Originally posted by soup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your intentions are good... her intentions are questionable... and proven so on multiple occasions.
if the guy with a table on the sidewalk, and three half shells asks you to pay to play his game - would you ?
would you trust him and pay to play the tenth time you found out he was lying, and there wasn't any ball under any of the shells ?
Originally posted by zxaar:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She good at photography.
And its never late to change ourselves. If she decides to straighten herself and concetrate on what she if good at. I am sure she will have all the success she wants. But it will happen only if she wants it to happen and she is determined enough.
Rose if you are reading it, its never late.
Well this is pretty much a human's nature. Not to be duped again and again.
And I am not suggesting that DPC should allow her back. I think she blew that chance.
But life could be much more than DPC confines.
What I was suggesting is she could make changes in herself and its never late for this.
Obviously if so many people are so much pissed off there is something wrong with her. Its never late to think about it and make changes in life.
She is good at photography and if she makes changes in herself she would get respect.
|
Message edited by author 2009-04-27 22:12:37.
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:05:27 PM · #195 |
can anyone fill me in on what she did in the first place? was she stealing photos? |
|
|
07/08/2009 05:12:14 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by sprite777: can anyone fill me in on what she did in the first place? was she stealing photos? |
Heh - you had to drag this back into the open screaming and scratching.. good luck! |
|
|
07/08/2009 05:15:08 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Simms: Originally posted by sprite777: can anyone fill me in on what she did in the first place? was she stealing photos? |
Heh - you had to drag this back into the open screaming and scratching.. good luck! |
Oh wait. Holy smokes. I had no idea how old this thread was. I don't even know why it came up. I thought it was recent.
Please, no one respond. I'll just read what's already here. :)
(So I leave for like a year, and come back just to be as awkward as ever. Great job, Matt.) |
|
|
07/08/2009 05:26:08 PM · #198 |
Welcome back, sprite, and I'll post just to draw attention to your embarrassment ;) |
|
|
07/08/2009 05:31:05 PM · #199 |
I'm really saddened to read this. Why can't people like Rose (and Rikki and I'm sure there are more) just rely on their talent? There is no need to cheat! Why can't they understand that?? Karma is a bitch! |
|
|
07/08/2009 05:31:30 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by BeeCee: Welcome back, sprite, and I'll post just to draw attention to your embarrassment ;) |
I knew someone would. :)
...and now I'm doing it. Dang it. |
|