| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2009 05:33:49 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Can this be made visible somewhere on the challenge submission page? The verbage MAY be something like this: "As an effort to encourage fair competition and the enjoyment of all participants, we request you adhere to specifics presented in the challenge description. In the event you are unclear of the description, please contact SC/forums for clarification".
Now pretend I didn't write this. Is this workable? |
It is workable.
The point is that it is unlikely to change anything or do any good. More likely just another place for people to point to and complain that it is not enforceable. We are all adults and are making a conscious decision when we enter something that is not in the spirit of the challenge. It is highly unlikely that adding more verbiage to the site is going to change the fact that some will choose to ignore it and some will criticize them for it.
BTW - it is not an Ivo thing so stop trying to make it one. |
We all know we should fasten our seat belts. The seat belt warning light/buzzer reminds me of that every now and then. The consequence of not wearing the seat belt is a result of my not acknowledging the warning.
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 17:36:12. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:35:52 PM · #127 |
| Thanks for the conversation but this has run its course for me. It has all been said and is now running in circles. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:40:49 PM · #128 |
i believe in mk, and any smite bestowed by Her unto me shall be taken with utmost respect, and gratitude.
Originally posted by mk:
But I will. And I exist even if you don't believe in me. |
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 17:40:58.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:42:37 PM · #129 |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:43:28 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
We all know we should fasten our seat belts. The seat belt warning light/buzzer reminds me of that every now and then. The consequence of not wearing the seat belt is a result of my not acknowledging the warning. |
YES and as ADULTS we make the choice to put it on or not, regardless of the warning.
So let us ALL be adults and make up our own minds on what we do and not do.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:59:59 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by Ivo:
We all know we should fasten our seat belts. The seat belt warning light/buzzer reminds me of that every now and then. The consequence of not wearing the seat belt is a result of my not acknowledging the warning. |
YES and as ADULTS we make the choice to put it on or not, regardless of the warning.
So let us ALL be adults and make up our own minds on what we do and not do. |
California Department of Transportation sign reminding drivers (and passengers) of the mandatory seatbelt law.
How many people who don't wear seatbelts still expect the public to pick up the tab for emergency rescue and medical services when they're in an accident? The consequences of your decisions often affect others besides yourself.
Sorry for the diversion (and bump), but maybe this wasn't the best analogy. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:03:59 PM · #132 |
No it is a perfect one
it means, we are adults, we make our own descions whether other people want us to follow something or not. it is our privilege as humans |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:05:36 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by Ivo:
( ... snip ... )
The question I present to the community is whether it would be prudent to formulate a basic code of ethics ( ... snip ... ) |
No, it wouldn't. |
i'm agreeing with  raish
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 18:05:45. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:14:54 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by Ivo:
We all know we should fasten our seat belts. The seat belt warning light/buzzer reminds me of that every now and then. The consequence of not wearing the seat belt is a result of my not acknowledging the warning. |
YES and as ADULTS we make the choice to put it on or not, regardless of the warning.
So let us ALL be adults and make up our own minds on what we do and not do. |
California Department of Transportation sign reminding drivers (and passengers) of the mandatory seatbelt law.
How many people who don't wear seatbelts still expect the public to pick up the tab for emergency rescue and medical services when they're in an accident? The consequences of your decisions often affect others besides yourself.
Sorry for the diversion (and bump), but maybe this wasn't the best analogy. |
There are failures in every system. Hence the reason there are challenge DQs due to editing infractions etc. You can't get around that even with the exhaustive existing rule set. The reason there is little challenge to those rules is because they are accessible.
Is it hypocritical of anyone, including myself, to feel what  Nuzzer, Elsapo and  Scalvert did was wrong in any sense of the word? After all, there is no visible reference supporting our claims of deceit other than the embedded values many site members bring to the community. These values are one heck of a lot more vocal than the written ones in the site rules yet they are not visible.
Make them visible if for nothing more than a checklist or a reference.
BTW, do you know the stats on how many lives were saved by that road sign? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:18:02 PM · #135 |
All we need here are a few more rules and DPC will stand for Digital Photo Communism. A Code of Ethics on the internet is like having a Quiet Sign in the Library. Even though they exist, Someone always ends up talking loud.
I would really love to find out how many rules are broken on DPC each and every week. Because only the top 5 entries actually get policed we will never know how many people have bent the rules to improve their photo.
I am sure the list is much larger than any of us would like to imagine. But that is the nature of competition, Some people look for loopholes others just flat out cheat and some do it without remorse. A code of ethics will not change that. Just like the quiet sign doesn't make everyone whisper while in the Library. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:18:18 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
BTW, do you know the stats on how many lives were saved by that road sign? ;-) |
No, nor how many tickets issued to help replenish the State's exhausted coffers ... but then, THAT picture was only taken last night on my way home ... ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 06:21:10 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Ivo:
BTW, do you know the stats on how many lives were saved by that road sign? ;-) |
No, nor how many tickets issued to help replenish the State's exhausted coffers ... but then, THAT picture was only taken last night on my way home ... ;-) |
And the other part of my comment? Your thoughts?
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 18:21:59. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 07:11:54 PM · #138 |
embedded values are just that - embedded. having of log of embedded values isn't going to embed values in anyone - it's only stating the obvious to those that already adhere to them.
and if you haven't realized already - alot of those values are visible.... you just have to look.
Originally posted by Ivo:
After all, there is no visible reference supporting our claims of deceit other than the embedded values many site members bring to the community. These values are one heck of a lot more vocal than the written ones in the site rules yet they are not visible.
|
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 07:30:27 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by soup:
embedded values are just that - embedded. having of log of embedded values isn't going to embed values in anyone - it's only stating the obvious to those that already adhere to them.
and if you haven't realized already - alot of those values are visible.... you just have to look. |
[/quote]
Is this some philosophical rebuke? If not, please post the link so I can view these common values and determine whether my values/ethics align with those of the community.
Am I to expect we should all share the same values/ethics when it comes to competition in the challenges? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 08:06:08 PM · #140 |
i think the answer is NO...
Originally posted by Ivo:
Am I to expect we should all share the same values/ethics when it comes to competition in the challenges? |
do you expect that ? i think the answer is YES.
oh - here is the link you asked for.
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 20:08:11.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 08:19:05 PM · #141 |
Wow, this is the best you can do? lol |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 09:26:01 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Would this "code" also address members who insult and belittle anyone who posts an opinion or idea contrary to their own in any forum thread?
This seems, to me, a more common and unpleasant occurrence here than the cited challenge "issues". |
Forum rules dictate that already. I'm talking about challenge ethics. Any thoughts on that one? |
And yet, in the thread that preceded this one, you were perfectly content to push, and arguably cross, the limits of those written rules, as a means to the end of making your point. In this thread, you continue to push, and arguably cross those limits (it's hard to read something like "deal with your own insecurity in another thread" as anything but a personal attack), as a means to the end of producing a written code of ethics.
There are three problems with this. First, it demonstrates the skeptics' point that the presence of a written code of ethics will do little to deter anyone who would inadvertently or willfully violate it. Second, it adds credence to the fear that this would be used as a way to beat up on those who some participants see as crossing the line. Third, and most importantly, I'm sure that more than a few take exception to the idea that someone who is so willing to play "fast and loose" with the forum rules (and the basic ethical standard of treating people of varying opinions with respect), would presume to lead the charge on how closely others should hew to the challenge descriptiohs.
If you want this effort to succeed, you probably need to rethink your approach, and focus on how you can address your critics' and skeptics' concerns, rather than merely dismissing them as insignificant or insincere.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 09:58:10 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
And yet, in the thread that preceded this one, you were perfectly content to push, and arguably cross, the limits of those written rules, as a means to the end of making your point. Did I cross the limits? Really?? In this thread, you continue to push, and arguably cross those limits (it's hard to read something like "deal with your own insecurity in another thread" as anything but a personal attack), as a means to the end of producing a written code of ethics.
There are three problems with this. First, it demonstrates the skeptics' point that the presence of a written code of ethics will do little to deter anyone who would inadvertently or willfully violate it. Second, it adds credence to the fear that this would be used as a way to beat up on those who some participants see as crossing the line. Third, and most importantly, I'm sure that more than a few take exception to the idea that someone who is so willing to play "fast and loose" with the forum rules (and the basic ethical standard of treating people of varying opinions with respect), would presume to lead the charge on how closely others should hew to the challenge descriptiohs.
If you want this effort to succeed, you probably need to rethink your approach, and focus on how you can address your critics' and skeptics' concerns, rather than merely dismissing them as insignificant or insincere. |
Wow, you are something else. Have you read the thread and my comments or are you referring to convenient excerpts which substantiate your situational ethics? Crossing the line when I am belittled and respond with a sharp wit instead of blatant insults? Is your apparent favoritism based upon how many faves other photographers have awarded me?
Your paranoia regarding the "member police" breaking down the walls of evil offenders is weak and nothing more than a ruse to maintain the status quo. Do they break down your walls when they get DQd for entry violations?
Now finally, and the big one ....... I don't need a sideline coach who has done nothing but thwart a determined attempt to expose an issue which has metastasized. If I have accomplished anything, it is bringing a substantial amount of attention to a problem which has had extraordinary impact on the credibility of some members.
Challenge me with intellect and you may be surprised at the attention I'll offer in my response. Attempt to belittle me with pseudo superiority and expect a distasteful response.
Now, I suspect you will lock this thread because it displeases you as well? I like what Marcus said earlier when he was asked to govern because of someone's bruised ego.
Surprise me and challenge my mind.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:08:37 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
... Surprise me and challenge my mind. |
He just did - you missed it. LOL! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:14:21 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ivo:
... Surprise me and challenge my mind. |
He just did - you missed it. LOL! |
Is that what it was? Rather unoriginal IMO.
Have you anything productive to say or are you content to swoop in like a gull as well?
Oh goodness, I feel the love! ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:18:16 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ivo:
... Surprise me and challenge my mind. |
He just did - you missed it. LOL! |
Is that what it was? Rather unoriginal IMO.
Have you anything productive to say or are you content to swoop in like a gull as well?
Oh goodness, I feel the love! ;-) |
Still have my opinion that people may change their attitudes with their mistakes.
But woa! You are answering this thread since 12:03:59 AM! And i don't think they will creat a code of ethics! :D
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:21:27 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ivo:
... Surprise me and challenge my mind. |
He just did - you missed it. LOL! |
Is that what it was? Rather unoriginal IMO.
Have you anything productive to say or are you content to swoop in like a gull as well?
Oh goodness, I feel the love! ;-) |
Still have my opinion that people may change their attitudes with their mistakes.
But woa! You are answering this thread since 12:03:59 AM! And i don't think they will creat a code of ethics! :D |
I feel like an Olympian and we are still wallowing through the attack IVO stage. ;-)
This site is so predictable. Swarming is very commonplace. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:38:54 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I feel like an Olympian and we are still wallowing through the attack IVO stage. ;-)
This site is so predictable. Swarming is very commonplace. |
And apparently ignoring sincere questions back on page one equally so.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:59:21 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Did I cross the limits? Really?? |
Yes. I cited just one example.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Wow, you are something else. |
Thanks. I try not to be ordinary.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Have you read the thread and my comments or are you referring to convenient excerpts which substantiate your situational ethics? |
I've read every post in this thread as well as the one that preceded it.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Crossing the line when I am belittled and respond with a sharp wit instead of blatant insults? |
Actually, this statement proves that you crossed the line with the forum rules: "Assume good faith. When replying to a post, your reply must assume that the original poster's message was intended to be constructive and follow the rules. It's difficult to convey facial expressions or tone of voice over the forums, so a post that appears offensive may be well intentioned. If you cannot assume the original poster acted in good faith, report the post in question, and do not reply at all." (emphasis added)
Originally posted by Ivo:
Is your apparent favoritism based upon how many faves other photographers have awarded me? |
I don't know many faves other photographers have awarded you. I hope it's a lot, though. You're a better photographer than I am, and I like seeing good photographers get recognized for their work. It's one of the reasons I pushed so hard to get the feature created back in 2002. I suppose I could go look, but since it's irrelevant to the discusson, I'll do it later, if at all.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Your paranoia regarding the "member police" breaking down the walls of evil offenders is weak and nothing more than a ruse to maintain the status quo. Do they break down your walls when they get DQd for entry violations? |
A ruse, really? No, if I think a change is a particularly bad (or good) idea, I'll speak up and say so, and state my reasons why. Then, I'll listen respectfully to the people who disagree with me, and allow them the opportunity to change my mind. If a large number of people disagree with me, I'll at least consider the possibility that I may not be right.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Now finally, and the big one ....... I don't need a sideline coach who has done nothing but thwart a determined attempt to expose an issue which has metastasized. |
I haven't thwarted anything. I never said I thought your idea was a bad one. In fact, I haven't expressed an opinion on it at all. I've merely suggested you take a different approach, like putting forth fewer personal attacks and more (or any) concrete suggestions. How about putting forth a first draft that people can discuss?
Originally posted by Ivo:
If I have accomplished anything, it is bringing a substantial amount of attention to a problem which has had extraordinary impact on the credibility of some members. |
Each member's credibility is a function of his or own behavior on the site, whether that be in the challenges, the forums, or elsewhere.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Challenge me with intellect and you may be surprised at the attention I'll offer in my response. |
I believe I did. I challenged you to reflect on how your approach to this project is helping or hurting its success. Since you don't like that challenge, here's a different one: How about a first draft that interested parties can comment on?
Originally posted by Ivo:
Attempt to belittle me with pseudo superiority and expect a distasteful response. |
I never belittled you. I merely suggested a different approach. You responded me by accusing me of bad faith multiple times in this post.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Now, I suspect you will lock this thread because it displeases you as well? I like what Marcus said earlier when he was asked to govern because of someone's bruised ego. |
You say that like you think I locked the last thread. I didn't.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Surprise me and challenge my mind. |
OK. I challenge you to assume good faith when responding to fellow participants. If you can't do that, don't respond at all, and report the post if you feel you must. Further, I challenge you to give the interested parties something concrete to work on, like a first draft.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:02:28 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Ivo:
I feel like an Olympian and we are still wallowing through the attack IVO stage. ;-)
This site is so predictable. Swarming is very commonplace. |
And apparently ignoring sincere questions back on page one equally so. |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Okay, so this is what I'm hearing;
Yeah, it would be great but it will never work because people are naturally deceptive and self serving....."quotes from smart dead people" ;-)
Either we shut up and accept it or try to fix it. I think it can be fixed within reason, Is there a desire to work through this? It can be fun. |
Suppose something is done. How do we know when it's better or fixed? |
Sorry I missed it. I was busy swatting flies.
It would be difficult to offer a definite answer although I strongly feel it would reduce conflict from matters as experienced in the 47 steps challenge. It would be an agreement developed by the community to recognize certain values which are common amongst the membership. If may be referenced at times where ambiguity is a concern and offer an unbiased and documented guide which does not chastise, ridicule or isolate individuals. There will be a great reduction in the number of dead horses beaten and a significant drop in the consumption of popcorn in the forums.
There really is little risk as it is a voluntary and non-binding agreement made by the community.
I guess we will need some faith?
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 07:52:11 AM EDT.
