| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2009 11:06:00 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by jeger:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Are reinstatements announced? I've never seen one.
|
 |
Oops...  skewsme was one of the first to congratulate him for the re-instatement. :)
Originally posted by skewsme:
Glad to see that everything got, um, straightened out ;-) |
|
hehe...
I think I forgot to mention the horizon adjustment in the editing steps, and so the SC thought I used the 'perspective' tool but that was easily cleared up by some quick diagrams from the good people at this site :D
That was one of those odd cases where there was no judgment call to be made, just a straight-forward clearing up of a mis-communication, not totally unlike the case at hand it seems to me. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:15:14 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
I've been DQ'd before and I think people want a chance to explain themselves so others don't think they are cheaters, and not have to wait to talk until potentially after the challenge viewing period is over and new pics are up on the front page and they are forgotten.
|
Ohhh. . .definitely agreed. . .and agreed. In my case, I was so sure I hadn't done any illegal editing, so I did want to explain myself and go on the record to say it. But definitely agreed that the public debate while uncovering all the facts has definitely embarrassed me!
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:33:34 AM · #78 |
... and I just saw this one  !
If there is no physical evidence of what you 'claimed' to have done I really can't see how that is a violation??
Not to get all lawyer talky but in the United States, it is not enough to simply confess to a murder, there must be corroborating evidence linking you to the crime or else no matter how much you plead you will not be convicted of murder...
I dunno, I can certainly see the importance for SC to be 'hard & fast' on rules violations, but when it comes to mistakes in communication unsupported by physical evidence, I think it will end up chilling editing disclosure by participants and paradoxically, may make the detection of cheating more difficult.
In my case, the only thing that makes my DQ below different is that my mistake was an omission, not an affirmative statement, and absent physical evidence I don't think that should be enough to DQ - We should want to increase candor and allow for the possibility of remedying or rebutting honest communication mistakes.
Not to pick on Will and I don't have an opinion on his case, but this can all be contrasted with  where there was evidence of a violation that was not rebutted. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:47:09 AM · #79 |
that sucks !!! a solution might have been, or could be, not to list editing steps when submitting an original for validation, and let SC figure it out the hard way... ?
i'm not really advocating that idea - so much as mentioning it because getting DQ'd for a typo is a bummer. this isn't MSWordchallenge.com... though understand the reasoning behind SC's decision to DQ, it was listed there in B&W... still a bummer though.
the entries i've submitted for validation have had details along the lines of
adjustment layers for levels, curves, hue saturation, USM full size, resize for web, USM web res. or similar.
pretty vague.
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 11:48:13.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:47:54 AM · #80 |
| I forgot about Ben's photo. Was there ever a comparison made between the original and his submission? From what was posted, I can't see what was cloned but I haven't seen the original. From what is presented, it does look like this could be a similar case of miscommunication indeed. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:52:25 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by soup:
that sucks !!! a solution might have been, or could be, not to list editing steps when submitting an original for validation, and let SC figure it out the hard way... ?
|
at which point you will probably get a message asking for the details. if you still don't share anything, there is a good possibility that it could be dq'ed because we can't replicate it. :(
as far as "vague," usually the vague is enough to get it close enough (if not exact) that it is deemed "possible" and thus legal.
+++++++++++++++
in sandy's case (because it relates to something somebody up there said), it *could* have been done with screen, or it could have been done without screen. either way.
:( |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 12:05:48 PM · #82 |
Why not simplify the whole validation process;
- Request the original
- Compare the original to the submitted photo
- If it's obvious that the final result would be achievable within the Basic rules, then let it go
- If there is any uncertainty, or if it looks like illegal filters or layers might have been used, or if there is any spot editing, THEN request the editing steps for review
It sounds as if there's an awful lot of SC time being spent on attempting to replicate the editing steps for every photo submitted for validation, when in some cases even the original photographer can't replicate the steps exactly!
In the case of SandyP's dq; she used the Basic ruleset, the results are easily achievable within the Basic ruleset, the dq was because of a typo in her editing steps. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 12:55:33 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
I've been DQ'd before and I think people want a chance to explain themselves so others don't think they are cheaters, and not have to wait to talk until potentially after the challenge viewing period is over and new pics are up on the front page and they are forgotten.
|
Ohhh. . .definitely agreed. . .and agreed. In my case, I was so sure I hadn't done any illegal editing, so I did want to explain myself and go on the record to say it. But definitely agreed that the public debate while uncovering all the facts has definitely embarrassed me! |
On the other hand, suppose it were to be reinstated -- we have now had an extensive discussion of a specific photo in a current challenge and available to be voted on, which we are also not suposed to do.
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I think maybe she just meant ambiguous on my part having to have validated 2 similar photos in 2 days and being so tired and absent minded. |
Ya know, if you'd only submit stuff that scores in the low to mid 5's, you wouldn't have this problem. :-) |
Don't count on it. :-(
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 12:58:49. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 01:03:29 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ya know, if you'd only submit stuff that scores in the low to mid 5's, you wouldn't have this problem. :-) |
Don't count on it. :-( |
Amen to that. My very first entry was DQed because when I edited it, the software left a 1 pixel wide line, down one side of the image. I didn't even notice it, but someone else did, and at that time borders were not allowed.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 06:00:59 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On the other hand, suppose it were to be reinstated -- we have now had an extensive discussion of a specific photo in a current challenge and available to be voted on, which we are also not suposed to do. |
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/
Message edited by author 2009-07-03 18:17:20. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 06:24:18 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/ |
Sorry -- had it mixed up with another challenge ... |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 07:24:08 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/ |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- had it mixed up with another challenge ... |
So did someone with her processing steps.....it happens....
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 09:00:15 PM · #88 |
bust post
Message edited by author 2009-07-04 06:32:11. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:19:15 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/ |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- had it mixed up with another challenge ... |
So did someone with her processing steps.....it happens.... |
You're right, it does happen.
When it does, you admit your mistake, you smack yourself on the wrist, and you make damn sure that it never happens again. Why? Because you run the risk of being DQ'd for your carelessness, by an SC that can only do the best job they can with what they are given. Without any kind of real evidence that she really did just mistakenly give the wrong information, which is for SC to determine, not us as a community, it would be an utter shame for this DQ to be reversed. Why? Well, what's stopping many others from henceforth going, "oh, right, sorry, I didn't mean I did THAT."
There's this awfully moronic mindset going on right now among this community that seems to be hell-bent for leather on trying to make the SC look like a bunch of incompetent slugs, and I'm finally reaching my breaking point on the amount of effort being put towards all the subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on them.
Let them do their mofo jobs, people, and stop becoming a mob against them every time some person has a personal crap-attack happen to them. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:30:11 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Let them do their mofo jobs, people, and stop becoming a mob against them every time some person has a personal crap-attack happen to them. |
Most of the posts here have been about suggesting ways to improve the validation process, to *prevent* this type of thing happening in the first place. SC can take or leave these suggestions, and I'm sure they have plenty of internal discussions going on about this stuff the whole time.
What would anyone get out of attacking the SC? - I'm sure SC get just as frustrated with these dq threads, but they have the disadvantage in that they have to be seen to remain level-headed.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:35:59 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Let them do their mofo jobs, people, and stop becoming a mob against them every time some person has a personal crap-attack happen to them. |
Most of the posts here have been about suggesting ways to improve the validation process, to *prevent* this type of thing happening in the first place. SC can take or leave these suggestions, and I'm sure they have plenty of internal discussions going on about this stuff the whole time.
What would anyone get out of attacking the SC? - I'm sure SC get just as frustrated with these dq threads, but they have the disadvantage in that they have to be seen to remain level-headed. |
If you can honestly say that you haven't seen any attacking going on, you're blind as a bat. Yes, there has been some good discussion among it as well, but things like Jeb's post are just subtle little digs that mean nothing but an attempt to 'stand by' someone they feel has been wronged, and it is, quite frankly, pathetic. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:36:21 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/ |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- had it mixed up with another challenge ... |
So did someone with her processing steps.....it happens.... |
You're right, it does happen.
When it does, you admit your mistake, you smack yourself on the wrist, and you make damn sure that it never happens again. Why? Because you run the risk of being DQ'd for your carelessness, by an SC that can only do the best job they can with what they are given. Without any kind of real evidence that she really did just mistakenly give the wrong information, which is for SC to determine, not us as a community, it would be an utter shame for this DQ to be reversed. Why? Well, what's stopping many others from henceforth going, "oh, right, sorry, I didn't mean I did THAT."
There's this awfully moronic mindset going on right now among this community that seems to be hell-bent for leather on trying to make the SC look like a bunch of incompetent slugs, and I'm finally reaching my breaking point on the amount of effort being put towards all the subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on them.
Let them do their mofo jobs, people, and stop becoming a mob against them every time some person has a personal crap-attack happen to them. |
I actually thought this was quite a civil thread, for a change. It didn't seem to degenerate into SC bashing.... |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:39:35 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
See the OP. It was a ribbon winner that was on the front page for several days. :-/ |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- had it mixed up with another challenge ... |
So did someone with her processing steps.....it happens.... |
You're right, it does happen.
When it does, you admit your mistake, you smack yourself on the wrist, and you make damn sure that it never happens again. Why? Because you run the risk of being DQ'd for your carelessness, by an SC that can only do the best job they can with what they are given. Without any kind of real evidence that she really did just mistakenly give the wrong information, which is for SC to determine, not us as a community, it would be an utter shame for this DQ to be reversed. Why? Well, what's stopping many others from henceforth going, "oh, right, sorry, I didn't mean I did THAT."
There's this awfully moronic mindset going on right now among this community that seems to be hell-bent for leather on trying to make the SC look like a bunch of incompetent slugs, and I'm finally reaching my breaking point on the amount of effort being put towards all the subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on them.
Let them do their mofo jobs, people, and stop becoming a mob against them every time some person has a personal crap-attack happen to them. |
I actually thought this was quite a civil thread, for a change. It didn't seem to degenerate into SC bashing.... |
It's not just this thread. It's been building up for awhile :P |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:50:53 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Well, what's stopping many others from henceforth going, "oh, right, sorry, I didn't mean I did THAT."
|
Here's what will stop them: Actual evidence that they DID what they say they did, i.e., the inability to otherwise recreate the image.
Veterans of this site know what is legal and what is not, I think if they were bent on cheating they wouldn't write it into their editing description.
The only situation this rule is good for is when a new person comes to the site and unwittingly admits to having violated a rule they did not know about, but even then the admission just makes it easier for SC to nab the violation they were going to find anyway through the validation process.
It just seems to me that the guilty end up guilty anyway, why fault the innocent for a communication error and DQ them on a technicality?
And let's not conflate legitimate dissent with treason - I love this site too and have tremendous respect for the SC and the role they play, doesn't mean I have to always be in agreement. This site has changed and evolved over the years and maybe these forum conversations play some small role in that. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 10:55:32 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Well, what's stopping many others from henceforth going, "oh, right, sorry, I didn't mean I did THAT."
|
Here's what will stop them: Actual evidence that they DID what they say they did, i.e., the inability to otherwise recreate the image.
Veterans of this site know what is legal and what is not, I think if they were bent on cheating they wouldn't write it into their editing description.
The only situation this rule is good for is when a new person comes to the site and unwittingly admits to having violated a rule they did not know about, but even then the admission just makes it easier for SC to nab the violation they were going to find anyway through the validation process.
It just seems to me that the guilty end up guilty anyway, why fault the innocent for a communication error and DQ them on a technicality?
And let's not conflate legitimate dissent with treason - I love this site too and have tremendous respect for the SC and the role they play, doesn't mean I have to always be in agreement. This site has changed and evolved over the years and maybe these forum conversations play some small role in that. |
I can handle disagreement. I don't, however, get along very well with little underhanded jabs and shit, and there's been far too much of it lately. I just kind of broke on one of them.
I'll respectfully withdraw and let the rest of y'all have at 'er. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:12:14 PM · #96 |
I guess it is the entrant's responsibility to ensure the processing steps offered are accurate and complete. In the event where the entrant had haphazardly omitted details, it is then the responsibility of the judges (SC in this case) to do the forensics. This is no different then forgetting to include details on a passport application or any other process where validation is essential. Oops?? Please wait another 14 weeks for processing. lol
Now whether or not SC can, or should, try to reproduce the processing steps will depend on whether the entrant provided them with complete information. The fact that they tried to retrace the steps is admirable. The consequence of them not being able to do so is a responsibility shouldered by the entrant.
I agree, for once, with K10DGuy that the jabs are ridiculous and amount to nothing more than childish pouting. Many people hate cops till they need them. Site council is simply doing their jobs..... like it or not.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:30:27 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
The fact that they tried to retrace the steps is admirable. The consequence of them not being able to do so is a responsibility shouldered by the entrant. |
I think you're missing the point in this particular situation - It was not an omission of an editing step but the erroneous addition of one. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:33:35 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by Ivo:
The fact that they tried to retrace the steps is admirable. The consequence of them not being able to do so is a responsibility shouldered by the entrant. |
I think you're missing the point in this particular situation - It was not an omission of an editing step but the erroneous addition of one. |
Then I apologize for that oversight but the result is the same. Accuracy is the burden associated with anything that may be subject to scrutiny. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:42:02 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Then I apologize for that oversight but the result is the same. Accuracy is the burden associated with anything that may be subject to scrutiny. |
I mean I just disagree. We don't convict innocents until they're proven guilty, and they're not proven guilty unless the evidence stacks up against them.
It's not enough to say "the burden is on the entrant" to do X, I think we should have logical reasons for our rules and I haven't heard any yet for 'Guilt by technicality'. |
|
|
|
07/03/2009 11:47:57 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Then I apologize for that oversight but the result is the same. Accuracy is the burden associated with anything that may be subject to scrutiny. |
I mean I just disagree. We don't convict innocents until they're proven guilty, and they're not proven guilty unless the evidence stacks up against them.
It's not enough to say "the burden is on the entrant" to do X, I think we should have logical reasons for our rules and I haven't heard any yet for 'Guilt by technicality'. |
As a idealist, I'd agree with you completely. As a realist, I must accept the laws set forth by the governing bodies. In this case, SC is the law.
A quote from a "Boomtown Rats" song comes to mind in this case for some strange reason but it may be applicable. It states, "Justice isn't blind, it just looks the other way."
Yes, I'm getting old. :-( lol |
|
