| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2009 11:55:16 PM · #101 |
Hah I mean I hear ya and I'm obviously not advocating a revolt or even the bitterness we've seen on the site, these were just my thoughts on how things could work better.
Don't know the Boomtown Rats but I was thinking of "I fought the law, and the law won", haha
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:08:33 AM · #102 |
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'. |
The mistake lies in continually trying to apply democratic societal law to DPC. This is not a Democracy or a Republic, and thusly what we would use to weigh 'guilt' and 'justice' in the lands of our lives, is not going to necessarily be the same in the land of DPC.
I don't think 'guilt' or 'justice' even apply in this case. It's a simple matter of mistake, and this time, the mistake was costly, and c'est la vie.
Of course, that's just how I see it. I just feel people need to learn to take their lumps with a little more dignity than has been shown over the last few months. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:12:38 AM · #103 |
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'. |
This is not a court of law, it's a privately-run site. There are a set of rules we agree to abide by every single time we enter, with penalties if we fail to abide by them. I do believe Sandy made a mistake, but she DID tell SC that she broke the rules. They really have no choice but to apply the penalty, otherwise there's no point in having them. Many will simply whine and cry and stamp their feet and make excuses and lie if necessary and pull up past precedent to get their penalty negated.
I could maybe see them overturning this if the step she mistakenly told them created a different effect on her entry, proving that it was impossible, but that wasn't the case. It COULD have been used.
We accept that we'll be DQed if our camera date is wrong, even if it shows the shot is from "the future", hence impossible, because that's the rule, no exceptions. We all agree it sucks when it happens but that doesn't change that it does and should happen. The same applies here. I think it's a terrible shame that Sandy's mistake resulted in the DQ of a beautiful, ribboning shot but it should stand, because that's the rule we agree to when we enter.
eta; while I typed that other guy said the same thing much more succinctly :)
Message edited by author 2009-07-04 00:14:01. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:21:47 AM · #104 |
Sandy is my Martha Stewart.
Damn them for punishing the perfect cookie lady! ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:28:31 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Sandy is my Martha Stewart.
Damn them for punishing the perfect cookie lady! ;-) |
No, that's Martha Fields. Martha Stewart is the perfect wreath lady... :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:28:34 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The mistake lies in continually trying to apply democratic societal law to DPC. |
If this was a dictatorship then SC would let us know that. There are forum sections for challenge and website suggestions, SC have been known to go out of their way to explain things to us, and they have even overturned DQs in the past.
The reality is that their word is obviously final, but I am operating under the assumption that protests are allowed even if they ultimately go ignored.
Just because something is 'the law' doesn't make it right, slavery used to be legal, etc.., I don't think healthy debate in the spirit of improvement will hurt the vitality of the site. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:38:08 AM · #107 |
| That response applies to BeeCee too - obviously SC can and will do whatever they want and will still receive my dues but that is besides the point - we're all humans here and by choosing to interact with us SC make this private website a special community, and again I don't see why calm discussion of the rationale behind rules should cause a stir. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 01:05:29 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
We accept that we'll be DQed if our camera date is wrong, even if it shows the shot is from "the future", hence impossible, because that's the rule, no exceptions. |
There is sound logic behind that black/white rule for if the date on your camera is incorrect then there is simply no way of proving when the shot was taken and if the rule is relaxed the whole system breaks down.
The same logic does not apply to the rule against erroneous editing-step-admissions, where we are essentially self-policing and there is potential for honest mistakes that could easily be rebutted by just taking a look at what is going on.
Keeping open the possibility of saying 'Oops I misspoke' and proving you could achieve the result legally would be a very narrow exception that I don't think would 'open up the floodgates'.
If SC tells me that such a process would be too burdensome on them then fine that's a valid rationale but if the motivation is to detect cheating then I don't see how it helps achieve that aim. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 05:33:18 AM · #109 |
I hope everyone realizes what an awful task it must have been to have to DQ one of the kindest, most decent people that DPC has had the pleasure of having as a member of this community.
To have to DQ her based on an innocuous error must have been extraordinarily difficult.
I know from my own experience as a mailing list admin that sometimes you really hate to make a required decision.....and it doesn't help at all when people don't understand what a difficult decision it can be.
So.....IMO, SC has a tough job, they had to do an unpleasant thing, this certainly should show that favorites aren't shown special treatment, and once again, we all learned something about how specific the rules are......and why they have to be upheld across the board.
Message edited by author 2009-07-04 06:50:48.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:04:24 PM · #110 |
Well. . .I know this is old news, but it's not really that old for me. Sorry for bringing it up again, and I know it's very controversial about whether or not a dq should stand when a non-editing mistake was made -- or, whether the person who received the dq should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I am feeling extremely humbled and grateful for being the recipient of "the benefit of the doubt" this time, after having learned yesterday that the dq in question here was reversed, and once again my Avian Angel bird photo has a shiny, beautiful and much appreciated blue ribbon next to it again.
The only reason I'm bringing it up again is not to draw attention to my blue ribbon, but to draw attention to site council's willingness to support one of its members -- even when the mistake was all mine -- and they most definitely didn't have to. It's so much more than just getting a ribbon back. It is about belonging to a community that is like a family to me, and knowing that even tho I screwed up, and by the letter of the law probably didn't deserve it, a higher, more supportive spirit won the day!
THANK YOU more than you could ever know!!! And if I'm ever lucky enough to be in the top 5 again, I think I will wait until the next day to submit my photo, and will have my husband proof my typing :)
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:12:16 PM · #111 |
Absolutely great news Sandy.
This is another excellent example of SC doing the hard work and delivering. They listen and keep this place in good working order, even though sometimes it does create a bit of a stir along the way.
Congrats on your re-instated Blue! |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:16:34 PM · #112 |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:19:42 PM · #113 |
Results currently show two blue ribbons? Is that temporary/a glitch, or will it stand? And yes, good news Sandy!
R. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:26:25 PM · #114 |
I think all the ribbons will stand. And to me, that is another example of Site Council caring more about people, than about the rule. I would never have wanted my reinstatement to take a ribbon away from someone else. It makes me proud to see 4 ribbons on this challenge. Its a symbol of what's right with "the law" here!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:30:42 PM · #115 |
I'm another who is totally delighted to see your "Blue" restored,  SandyP.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 03:56:01 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Results currently show two blue ribbons? Is that temporary/a glitch, or will it stand? |
Good question. Results are not automatically recalculated if the challenge is over a week old, so it's technically a glitch. That said, we don't generally like to take away ribbons so I'm not sure if it will stand or not. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 04:42:22 PM · #117 |
| This is most excellent news! I'm very happy to see it |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 04:59:00 PM · #118 |
| Congrats Sandy! I'm glad things worked out for you :) |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 06:10:56 PM · #119 |
| good news, and well deserved! |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 07:33:21 PM · #120 |
| Congrats Sandy... and a HUGE BRAVO to the SC. That's what we, the little people of DPC, like to see in the powers that be, fairness and REASON. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 08:23:16 PM · #121 |
yay Sandy! Yay SC!!
Good job all the way around! |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:11:07 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
yay Sandy! Yay SC!!
Good job all the way around! |
What she ^ said......8>)
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:05:44 PM · #123 |
Life is good.
Yes, it is! |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:17:17 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
Well. . .I know this is old news, but it's not really that old for me. Sorry for bringing it up again, and I know it's very controversial about whether or not a dq should stand when a non-editing mistake was made -- or, whether the person who received the dq should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I am feeling extremely humbled and grateful for being the recipient of "the benefit of the doubt" this time, after having learned yesterday that the dq in question here was reversed, and once again my Avian Angel bird photo has a shiny, beautiful and much appreciated blue ribbon next to it again.
The only reason I'm bringing it up again is not to draw attention to my blue ribbon, but to draw attention to site council's willingness to support one of its members -- even when the mistake was all mine -- and they most definitely didn't have to. It's so much more than just getting a ribbon back. It is about belonging to a community that is like a family to me, and knowing that even tho I screwed up, and by the letter of the law probably didn't deserve it, a higher, more supportive spirit won the day!
THANK YOU more than you could ever know!!! And if I'm ever lucky enough to be in the top 5 again, I think I will wait until the next day to submit my photo, and will have my husband proof my typing :) |
We never doubted the integrity of your photo, Sandy...and just knew it was a matter of time for the SC to reinstate your well-deserved Blue! |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:03:03 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
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. |
Nothing was cloned in my Demotivational DQ. I posted a resized original in the photo details section. The DQ was for spot sharpening that I *absolutely did* on my first edit of that entry. I then saved for the web at 200 but could not enter it because it was a basic rule set. Yada yada yada...life goes on. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 12:47:15 AM EDT.
