DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Nostra Culpa! A ban lifted
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 97 of 97, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/21/2009 05:27:13 PM · #76
Originally posted by PapaBob:
The DPC soap opera, only people here would understand it but it is a dandy of a soap opera!

Kudos to the SC for being willing to correct the mistake, and for everyone bashing SC lighten up they do a lot to try to keep things as fair as possible which is not an easy job with such a large group of cheaters...:P


I agree, I dont bash the SC `for the sake of it`.. in fact a few months back I was 100% on their side for one of the issues that had reared its head (I think it may of been the time someone posted a shot of themselves laying paralysed in bed and claimed it was a self portrait, even though they didnt actually setup the shot, or compose, or press the shutter button... hahah, I remember now.. he wrote `photo` on a piece of paper)

There is usually a valid reason when I go on an SC bash.
 09/21/2009 05:29:09 PM · #77
actually you were sort of making a blanket solution statement originally, IMO, and went back to it a couple times. no big thing. props for doing a bunch of sleuthing to root out the wrong of the situation. maybe Langdon will give you a job :)

Originally posted by Simms:
I was referring to the recent issue of kenskid and rugman, not as a blanket way of deducing dupe accounts on camera system alone. I also dropped in other suggestions such searching for usernames across the internet - flickr, facebook. Once you start putting all the pieces together you get a slightly clearer picture.

But as SEG(and kenskid) mentioned, even checking serial numbers on EXIF would of been flawed in this particular case as he had purchased a Nikon off Kenskid a while back, so effectively that would of drawn him into the web of intrigue and accusation for no other reason than buying a camera off someone he works with.

Its not a case of you not being able to make points, but you picked a tiny suggestion I made and expanded it to being my `final solution` to checking for dupe accounts, which is not what I was suggesting at all.


i threw an idea out there too, you seem to have overlooked it.


09/21/2009 06:22:17 PM · #78
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.
 09/21/2009 06:24:16 PM · #79
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.

And if someone is there to capture that on camera, they would have an entry the upcoming challenge roll over...
 09/21/2009 06:26:36 PM · #80
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.

And if someone is there to capture that on camera, they would have an entry the upcoming challenge roll over...


challennge also asks for kisses though. And please do not forget to mark NSFW if some skin involved.
 09/21/2009 06:59:56 PM · #81
Rugman must be typing up his "apology" to the site as I speak....LOL...

I'm not sure why Rugman didn't want to say he knew me...did he say that?

Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.


Message edited by author 2009-09-21 19:15:15.
 09/21/2009 07:04:49 PM · #82
Originally posted by kenskid:
Rugman must be typing up his "apology" to the site as I type....LOL...

I'm not sure why Rugman didn't want to say he knew me...did he say that?

Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.


Yes. When it was suggested that you guys were friends, he was pretty adamant that he didn't know anyone on this site personally. Probably a defense mechanism, but it sure didn't help the cause any.
 09/21/2009 07:09:19 PM · #83
I really didn't think I would ever get let back on the site. I had just about given up on the hope of being let back in. I knew that the banning was unfounded on the grounds of dup accounts. I'm glad Frisca or SC as a whole checked all the evidence and let me back on.

I wonder if this would have been different if SC contacted me and said "we think you and rugman1969 are the same...can you prove otherwise". Maybe this is an option in the future. On that note, I'm puzzled by the comment that the users were not "frank" with SC on their relationship. I don't remember being asked if I know rugman. I think, according to some posts, he may have denied knowing me.

Oh well everything worked out fine. I wonder what Rugman is going to say?

KS

Originally posted by frisca:
Dear Friends,

Last week we banned two users (kenskid and rugman1969) from the site for duplicate accounts and friend voting. Since that time, we have been presented with further, incontrovertable evidence that explains our findings (which were unexplained and denied by the users in question at first) and establishes these users as two separate people.

Its difficult to admit mistakes, but as you are our community and we are friends, we feel the right thing to do is to act accordingly here and re-instate the accounts and simply suspend for friend voting.

We are exceedingly sorry these users chose not to be frank with us about their relationship, thus leading us to the only conclusion we were left with. In future, to be as fair to all users as possible, we shall seek available outside evidence to confirm what our internal checks suggest before acting.

Thank you all again for your faith in us, and we hope we can always be deserving.

Our sincerest apologies to kenskid and rugman1969 for announcing they were duplicate accounts.
09/21/2009 07:13:38 PM · #84
I'm glad simms did all that great work. I'm also glad he didn't stumble upon my Youtube Video. This would have surely made some believe me and Rugman were the same!

The video has been active for months, I added the "tags" today.

I don't have my youtube acct as kenskid. This is why he didn't locate it!
 09/21/2009 07:29:55 PM · #85
it was langdon who was able to look into the CC's and he did the legwork for us. The rest of the research was post-facto but interesting. And I cannot take credit for something that all of the SC were involved in. I just took it upon myself to make sure the announcements and reinstatement were done timely.
 09/21/2009 07:32:03 PM · #86
Cool....Rug gave me the cc idea. I sent off an email to Langdon suggesting that he may want to check the cc for proof.

Originally posted by frisca:
it was langdon who was able to look into the CC's and he did the legwork for us. The rest of the research was post-facto but interesting. And I cannot take credit for something that all of the SC were involved in. I just took it upon myself to make sure the announcements and reinstatement were done timely.


Message edited by author 2009-09-21 19:34:50.
 09/21/2009 08:56:45 PM · #87
I'll get right on that. Maybe even something for the nude challenge. ;)

Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.

And if someone is there to capture that on camera, they would have an entry the upcoming challenge roll over...

09/21/2009 09:49:26 PM · #88
Ooops I meant to say with all honesty I DID NOT realize I was "buddy voting"...not DID know ! LOL....how can I ever expect you to believe that now?!!

I was checking over my votes for rug. His top two photos scored 6+. I voted a 10 on both of those and so did several others. They are good pic IMO.

My only other vote for rug was a 5 on one of the lesser scoring photos.

I really wish I could recall if if he showed me these photos before the challenge or during voting. I really don't recall. It's not like we talk all day long and these two votes were two years ago. The 5 score speaks for itself. It was the red bull pic.


Rug has 22 entries. I voted on three. 2 tens and a 5. So 66% of the time, I voted rug a 10. I guess this is enough to get you suspended if you call attention to yourself.

Do you think this would have been rooted out in the SC sweep I keep hearing about?

Also, I have no idea of what pics of mine that rug voted on. It would be interesting to see. Maybe he'll post the results.

Kenskid

Originally posted by kenskid:
Thanks to everyone that helped me get back on DPC. Quite a few of you posted in the forums and via email stating that my banning may have been a mistake.

Just a few to thank:

Art ROFLMAO
BEAR MUSIC
Cynthiann
SEG

And especially SIMMS.

I’m not sure if his post is the one that started everyone thinking that KenSkid and Rugman1969 are two different people but I’m glad he dug into cache files and posted his findings !

There are too many others to thank by name.

To everyone who hung me in the forums without a trial:

I want to say I don’t hold a grudge and you have the right to post what you want in the forumsâ€Â¦just like I do. The only thing that bothered me was that I couldn’t do what I do best --- ***Slap you back down in the thread !!**** It was eating me alive !! ;-) I can take all the criticism and name calling like “right wing freak” “no talent bum” and “loser” but the hardest part of this to swallow was for SC to call me Rugman !!!!!!!! (Sorry Rug).

I did email a few members that had public emails to explain my side of the story. Although I could have, I decided not to email anyone who was tearing me up in the thread and I’m glad I didn’t.

I’m sure the people who dislike me will continue to dislike me but that’s not a "banable" offense ! LOL !

******* You all couldn’t see what wasn’t posted in the forums but this was pretty funny****

When SIMMS came up with the idea of looking at camera exif data to determine the “serial number” of the camera to detect duplicated accounts I started to laugh my butt off. Why ? Well for starters SEG was the first to defend me so it threw some suspicion upon him that SEG/Kenskid/Rugman1969 were all one person. What got me laughing and an immediate visit to SEG was that SEG has my old D70 camera that links him to me ! I would have flipped if SEG was banned !

It’s a little ironic that the locked thread is now a treasure trove for anyone who wants to try to dup accounts and not get caught as well as some good pointers for SC in helping them determine true dups !

Lastlyâ€Â¦I am banned from entering contests and commenting on pictures. This is because of "buddy voting", which in all honesty, I did realize I was doing or that it was a very banable activity.

All I can do for three months is poke around in the forumsâ€Â¦Ă˘€Â¦Ă˘€Â¦Ă˘€Â¦SWEET ! ;--)

Thanks again and no hard feelings.

Kenskid
09/21/2009 09:50:15 PM · #89
Come on over SEG. We can use the self timer so you can join in.

Originally posted by SEG:
I'll get right on that. Maybe even something for the nude challenge. ;)

Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It seems to me that no matter WHAT the SC does, there has to be someone finding fault with it, if for no reason but to simply increase their own notoriety.

It's been said so many times, but it bears repeating. It's a thankless, difficult, psychotic volunteer job that these people do, and one would almost have to be completely off-the-wall insane to even consider doing it. However, for all the faults that are inherent in humanity, this group of people tends to do the best job they can do, and more often than not gets it right. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, yet they keep slogging on. That's worth a bloody medal in my books.


A good quote you can post on anything the SC ever does, to quash dissent.

I don't think the SC needs to apologize for this, however. Rugman lied about not knowing anybody on dpc. He was asking for it. He should be apologizing. Heck, he might even owe kenskid an apology. Then they might need to hug each other.

And if someone is there to capture that on camera, they would have an entry the upcoming challenge roll over...
09/21/2009 11:32:04 PM · #90
Originally posted by kenskid:
Rug has 22 entries. I voted on three. 2 tens and a 5. So 66% of the time, I voted rug a 10. I guess this is enough to get you suspended if you call attention to yourself.

Do you think this would have been rooted out in the SC sweep I keep hearing about?

You only see votes on three entries because most were tossed at rollover.
 09/21/2009 11:57:51 PM · #91
Ahhh so I voted lots more but thrown out bc of the voting percentage
gauge?

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Rug has 22 entries. I voted on three. 2 tens and a 5. So 66% of the time, I voted rug a 10. I guess this is enough to get you suspended if you call attention to yourself.

Do you think this would have been rooted out in the SC sweep I keep hearing about?

You only see votes on three entries because most were tossed at rollover.
09/22/2009 12:00:50 AM · #92
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh so I voted lots more but thrown out bc of the voting percentage gauge?

Yep.
 09/22/2009 12:02:01 AM · #93
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh so I voted lots more but thrown out bc of the voting percentage
gauge?

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Rug has 22 entries. I voted on three. 2 tens and a 5. So 66% of the time, I voted rug a 10. I guess this is enough to get you suspended if you call attention to yourself.

Do you think this would have been rooted out in the SC sweep I keep hearing about?

You only see votes on three entries because most were tossed at rollover.


you are clumsy buddy voter. I would never trust you.
 09/22/2009 12:09:28 AM · #94
Shouldn't this be locked by now.

We have heard from both sides and we should be all over it by now.

This is the internet after all.
 09/22/2009 12:15:31 AM · #95
Hi all, 9/21/2009
This is kenskid, oops, I mean rugman here (lol). I would like to say thanks to those who backed kenny & I up and submitted FACTS that kenskid and I are NOT the same person. I also now PERSONALLY know kenskid, even though contrary to some beliefs, I only knew OF him because we work for the same major corporation. I did not realize that a hello here and there constituted a personal friendship between two people. I have talked to him more on this site than I ever have face to face until recently, for obvious reasons. I have explained to SC why we pop up around the same times now and again, and I hope that was good enough for them. Now that you all know more about my personal life than I ever intended to share on this site, not that it’s anyone’s business, let’s get down to business. I do not intend to try to descimate SC or the others who were so thrilled at my ban because I am someone who doesn’t share their liberal views and for being wrongfully accused of something untrue without knowing the FACTS with this note, but I do intend to point out FACTS, and my feelings on how this situation was handled. I feel I am a fair person with a firm stance in my views, and I hope my words will reflect this.

First off, to be banned from a site with no way to publicly respond is pretty sad and in bad taste. I was in no way able to state my case to anyone but SC, which, in my opinion, because some member(s) of SC had already wrongfully drawn the wrong conclusions about me, saw a chance to shut me up for good because of my views and expressions of things. I feel this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Had I been able to defend myself in a forum where other members would have had a chance to get involved beforehand, this ban may never have taken place. The reason I was given for being banned from this site was for having duplicate accounts. In no way was this true, as currently proven. I believe the ban came as a result of my political views and the fact that I called attention to another members’ photo, who is a site favorite, and I think because I was questioning a possible dq for it was the main reason for my ban, because with minimal investigative work, it was too easily proven that the two accounts were in no way duplicates of one person. Why would I have duplicate accounts? You don’t really win anything. No money, real objects, nothing but recognition from only people here that see it. What’s the point in having duplicate accounts? So I can win a fake ribbon?

Secondly, I kept up with the thread about our ban. I see and can only hope others see those who will kick somebody when they are down before they have ANY FACTS as to what is really going on. I think that shows their true character. I know your views and mine do not coincide most of the time, but really, is it worth showing your true colors to everyone at a time when the case is still not closed? My God, I hope I never have to sit as a defendant in a court with you as a jury. You will possibly send the wrong person to prison for ASSUMING what you think instead of having actual FACTS, or because you don’t agree with his or the lawyers’ views. What comes around goes around, so I hope I am around when your time comes to have to deal with being accused and outcast before people know FACTS and accuse you of wrongdoing about what is going on. I understand people have complained about me and my views and comments to SC on numerous occasions. Sorry, but this is a free country, and I am not complaining about your views, nor will I apologize for mine. I may disagree with your views, but you have every right to them. My God people. We are not in kindergarten. Stop being tattletales and crybabies. We are ADULTS. I am not going to say anything to anyone outside the rules to get thrown off. You can report all you want, but I try to keep it within the rules. But I have my opinions, and I will state them when I feel I have too. If you don’t like it, you have every right to not read them or comment on them.

Third, my personal life is pretty much kept out of these forums, with the exception of my political and current event views. I intend to keep it that way. If I want you to know I know or know of somebody, I will tell you. If not, it really is none of your business whether I tell you I know somebody or not. It is not your right to know, and it is my right to decide whether you should know or not. I should be able to say I don't know anyone today, and say I know everyone tomorrow. It's my decision.

Fourth, Now the reason I have now been suspended instead of banned has been changed to buddy voting. I don’t know how you can possibly prove this without knowledge of knowing whether or not I know whose picture is who’s beforehand. I doubt anyone would know this except the voter or votee. As I’m sure many of you know, you can tell the style of someone’s photo’s for the most part, unless they change it for a certain challenge. This can be proven by the comments made DURING VOTING I have seen on certain people’s photo’s where a voter will specifically mention or say who’s photo it is by putting that person’s username along with a comment on the photo, and then say what vote they cast for it. This is the only way I could see as proof of someone buddy voting. If this is not proof, then it is recognizing the photographers style, which is what my defense was in these accusations of buddy voting. It can’t be ok for one person but not the other. So I vote high when I think I recognize someone’s style of photography, or if I see a photo that is appealing to me. From what I understand, that is not against the rules. So what? I may not always be right in assuming whose photo it is. I have voted 8’s, 9’s and 10’s for others’ photos. Why am I not accused of buddy voting for them? I do not ever remember making a reference DURING voting that I know who’s picture it is in the comment section DURING voting. But I see others do, and to one person in particular. I presented these facts to SC, and I guess they have brushed them off, because of the person being a site favorite. I understand we all like to see someone do well, and it will reflect in the voting, but do it right, not by being so conceited, blatant and up front about it. There is no real physical award. It is only bragging rights, if that’s your thing. That’s it. This my my defense towards these accusations of buddy voting. I cannot control the voting of others, whether or not I know who they are.

(I would like to point out that since I have joined this site, I have only voted on 4 out of 10 challenge submissions of kenskid’s, which I have researched. Of these, I was 1 of 6 to give a 10, 1 of 3 to give a ten, 1 of 8 to give a 9, and the only one to give a 10. I have not even voted on the other 6. If I was actually buddy voting, I think I would have voted a 10 on all of his submissions, not just 4 of them. I was told this is proof of buddy voting. Sorry, I do not see it. I guess all of my 9’s and 10’s should be considered buddy voting for everyone that received them from me. I mention kenskid, because that is who I am accused of buddy voting for.)

Fifth and finally, I feel this ban was intiated by a certain member(s) of SC because of not only my political views, but because I challenged a photo of someone who is a site favorite. There was no discussion between me or this person(s) on SC about the possibility of a duplicate account. I understand that we can’t all think alike, but is it worth it to lose the respect and integrity of peers by banning someone without so much as an email asking for some form of proof before you wrongly accuse me of something? What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? I would have been able to offer many suggestions to verify I am not the same person as who you thought I was. I am a very independent and logical person, and I pride myself on that. If I am wrong, I can and will admit it, if it can be proven to me. Otherwise, I will take my stand on it and stick to it. Because of this, I hope something will be done about the favoritism shown by some member(s) of SC before something like this happens again to anyone else. Just because we don’t see eye to eye is no reason to ban me from a site. I am me, that’s who I am, and I will not change no matter what happens. I will stop posting my views on things when it is against site policy.

I think that SC does a good job overall, and from what I understand, they do it for free. To dedicate this much of your time to a site when you could be doing other things for yourself is very nice, and for that I say thank you, but I wish you would reconsider your banning policy. Give someone a chance to answer questions you have before assuming the worst, and maybe it will be something simple to fix, without causing a big commotion again. I do thank you for finally looking into this matter properly, and discovering that the ban was uncalled for. I only wish it would have been brought to my attention sooner, and all of this could have been avoided.

Thanks to all who did not assume I was the bad person I was made out to be. I am glad I am able to rejoin this site, even if my past, current, or future comments contradict it. I thank you deeply for not seeing the worst in the accusations, and for putting out the little doubt that you could. I also would like to thank even more the very few who actually did some minor investigative work on their own that would prove we were 2 different people. My utmost thanks to you! I look forward to conversing or debating you here. I really appreciate your help and support.

P.S. to hahn23:
Richard,
I followed the thread of my ban, and read your comments. Because of our past debates and history, yours stood out the most. I must say, you are not the person I gave you credit to be. If any others, your comments affected me the most, whether you care or not. I felt you were a fair and less judgemental person, but I guess I was wrong. I did not see you as the type to throw someone under the bus like that without having the facts, even though our past has not been all laughs and giggles. I must say I had you pegged wrong, as I am usually a pretty good judge of character. I don’t know why you have these thoughts that I am harrassing or stalking you, but I will now put them to rest for you. First, stop reporting me to SC. If you cannot handle any criticism, stop posting pictures or entering challenges. I have not shown up at your doorstep, or even in your neighborhood, have I? Hell, I don’t even know where you live. From now on, I will not comment nor will I go look at your photos in your profile on DPC ever again. I will only reply to you if you bring my name up in a forum here or any such place, and I will debate you anytime I think I need to. I am done with you. As far as seeing the negative in someone so much, why don’t you look at the positive. Why would I be looking at YOUR photos? Think about it.
As for JulietNN and Yanko,
Thanks for your opinions in this thread. I know it will be oh so much fun when we debate again. I’ll keep trolling through here thinking of ya’ll.
Simms and Seg, thank you very much for your support. I mean that from the heart. It’s nice to see not ALL people see the worst, even when views differ from their own.

I would like to acknowledge to SC my acceptance of your apology, and in return apologize for any issues I may have caused for you in the past, present, and future. My sincere thanks for being able to admit the mistake and to apologize for it. I am very thankful to you for examining this issue to this extent and for the outcome. To all others, please cut SC some slack. I appreciate that they are doing what they can to keep the site fair. Whether or not they decide to change their minds about the buddy voting issue, they are doing what they can to keep it straight. I did not like being banned, but I do appreciate that they have it worked out, and that they were able to admit error and reverse their decision. I only hope I am able to do the same if needed. Thanks you, SC, for taking the time to sort through this.

I apologize to anyone who may take offense to this.
09/22/2009 12:17:02 AM · #96
We haven't heard from Rugman yet. Don't lock it yet if ever.

Originally posted by JulietNN:
Shouldn't this be locked by now.

We have heard from both sides and we should be all over it by now.

This is the internet after all.
09/22/2009 12:20:19 AM · #97
thanks for your thoughts, Rugman. I know you said a lot that maybe some people want to respond to, but I am going to close this thread and hope that the forums are civil, the debate lively and the people friendly from this point forward.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/12/2025 09:08:40 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 10/12/2025 09:08:40 AM EDT.