| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2010 02:33:37 PM · #426 |
Just for some clarification, because I see some things being stated incorrectly.
NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE was banned during this. The only privileges suspended was submitting to and voting in challenges, and that for various amounts of time. Banned is when someone is prohibited from the site totally.
Can they still post to the forums. Obviously.
Can they still comment in the challenges. Yes.
Can they still upload to the portfolios? Yes (provided they are a member).
Can they still participate/start side challenges? Yes.
Can they do absolutely everything else on the site? Yes.
And some weren't even suspended. Some simply received a notice that we had made an observation that their patterns were beginning to look suspect and a request/reminder to please vote fairly. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:38:20 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by Tez:
why was all this made public? |
To deter users from participating in voting malpractice, and to let the community know that we are trying to maintain its integrity. It could be argued that this thread successfully did both of those since we received multiple tickets from users confessing that they weren't caught but had done wrong in the past, and it seems a lot of folks are happy to know that we are not just simply turning a blind eye to potential cheating.
Unfortunately we also caused some unintended ripples elsewhere. |
I see less or no ripples that wouldn't have come about or been worse if you tried to keep this quiet (as if). I think the fact that it has been public is one of the positive things about the whole fiasco. I'll also acknowledge that punishing real cheaters is a positive thing and getting confessions from borderline cheaters without waterboarding them is good (less fun, but good).
Seems to me that a very generous benefit of the doubt would have been useful. If you confront someone with a suspect voting pattern and they say it is justified - let it go. I am guessing that the "real" cheaters wouldn't even protest and as you said, some even came forward and others will quietly vote more fairly. Sure someone could be blatantly buddy voting and claim a posthumous type defense, but how many of those does it take to diminish the sanctity and integrity of our voting system? Because the alternative - what has been done here, is causing WAY more damage to the community than the ever-present perception by some that voting is tainted (which will never change, by the way).
Then again, I can be proven wrong and this exercise might compel lots of good, but quiet members to stay and enter more challenges because the perceived integrity of voting is of the utmost importance - everything else be damned. At the very least, then, I think that should be the tagline of the site placed prominently under the logo "maintaining perceived voting integrity at any cost". |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:42:24 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by Tez:
why was all this made public? |
To deter users from participating in voting malpractice, and to let the community know that we are trying to maintain its integrity. It could be argued that this thread successfully did both of those since we received multiple tickets from users confessing that they weren't caught but had done wrong in the past, and it seems a lot of folks are happy to know that we are not just simply turning a blind eye to potential cheating.
Unfortunately we also caused some unintended ripples elsewhere. |
You know awhile back in China they had this neat thing called self-criticism sessions. It created a wonderful atmosphere for the exchange of human expression. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:43:47 PM · #429 |
Sounds fair to me. I mean we complain that people are voting unfairly and when the council does something about it, we complain and question their methods.
I know some innocent folks are victims of the list, but I think that there always will be some collateral damage to any measures taken. In my opinion its better to do something about it and take the collateral damage than not do anything about it at all.
It's a good thing that the council decided not to ban anyone because I am sure there are some innocent folks in that mess.
So once again, kudos to the SC.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:45:15. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:45:43 PM · #430 |
| Yippee! Collateral damage. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:47:25 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by hopper:
it should be fairly easy to find another person with a similar style and see how Don voted on that guys stuff ... the same pattern should appear, no? |
Just look at Don's profile page. It's all there. I would probably be on that list as well if I had played the DPC ribbon game less and the Posthumous Ribbon game more but maybe that's just my ego talking?
ETA: Well it was there (i.e. his list of statistical favorites). He's got Shannon's chart there now.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:49:49. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:48:33 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
The hardest thing here is to play out a scenario whereby Don takes his suspension and returns - what is he to do then? If he votes on what he likes he risks suspension, if he curbs his scores because he suspects an image pushes his button to the degree that it might be Pointy he might be compelled to drop the score a bit and so as not fall foul of SC. What a self-fulfilling prophecy that would be - deliberately changing marks so it looks like you are not biasing your voting.... The lose-lose of this scenario must surely indicate something has to give. |
Yes, that's the dealbreaker. I've had problems with the SC before, but I enjoy this site, am addicted to it, and I stay on, but I can't stay here if they won't let me vote. There's only so much marginalization I can take. |
This risky scenario actually now exists for Each and Every One Of Us. Don was sent to the back of the bus for his tastes, because the cold numbers can be interpreted as Unfair Voting. But the grander, larger Disparate Impact of the SC approach (that is applied to all of us) means than any of us that consistently give high or low marks to any style or genre or subject matter here are likely to be voting on a subset of photographers who tend to produce more of that work. The less mainstream the image style/genre, the more likely that fewer photographers are creating those images here, the more likely that any vote cast on those image will go to those photographers.
The response to this can be to compress one's voting scale so much that there will be "no sore thumb" voting patterns, but this makes the voting scale useless. We could just go to a binary scale: 1 for like it, 0 for like it less. Add all the ones up to determine a winner. Also absurd.
While I do welcome and support the SC efforts to scrub out buddy/team/friend voting, vote trading, etc. I can find no validity in this "unfair" criterion/analysis.
In fact, I will ask yet again: How do any of us vote highly on the images that appeal to us, low on those that do not, consistently over time without being at risk for this same treatment? Please describe the criteria specifically: what percentage of high votes to any single photographer over what specific time period will constitute "unfair"? What relative level above any individual's average vote will be defined as high? What will be the regular frequency of these scrubs, and what time period will be scanned?
And this situation and request is depressingly ludicrous: to ensure we are not snared in this "by the numbers" web, one must carefully consider while voting if This image Might Be by the Same Photographer one awarded a 10 in any previous challenge, so as not to give the otherwise instinctive 10 vote again. This policy now positively REINFORCES the idea of attempting to discern/guess the photographer while voting so as to alter one's vote casting downward.
This goes directly opposite to the noble claims of preserving the integrity of the voting process, it just drives people to give lower scores to imagery they love, higher scores to imagery they don't love, just to be "safe"
One must reasonably ask: what value does any "safe" vote have any more? One must reasonably ask: if my style is sufficiently unique that my identity is correctly guessed fairly often during challenges, will I now be getting deliberately adjusted votes? Or will those who like my work and vote "unsafely" be put at risk of suspension simply because they like my style consistently over time? Why, then, would any of us enter challenges, or vote on them any more?
Langdon, with respect, you really need to read up on the concept of Disparate Impact, sir. A policy or practice that, even if unintentionally, has a disparate, discriminatory impact on a minority group is still discriminatory, even if unintended or coincidental. Here, this practice is absolutely (inadvertently) targeting users with non-mainstream tastes in imagery/art. This is a private site, and you can do what you want. But understand clearly what you are, in fact, doing, even if you consider it an unintended but unalterable side effect, or an effect that you are unwilling to alter.
You have established a policy/practice that actually prevents or punishes conscientious voting by a passionate subgroup of the membership--is this not fundamentally at odds with the basic charter of DPC? If you do not change this, in what manner do you expect us to remain here? How, in good faith, can we remain?
People who team/friend/buddy/trade vote should be found and stopped. People who consistently vote their hearts on imagery that moves them, no matter the photographer, no matter the number of times, should be ENCOURAGED--both those voters and those photographers. If your process cannot in any way discern the difference, the process is fundamentally flawed, and must be repaired or discarded. [Or, since this IS your site, you can do the analysis that says this subset of membership is small and insignificant enough that it is not worth your time or effort, and shedding us is the easiest solution].
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:03:13. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:51:43 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Sounds fair to me. I mean we complain that people are voting unfairly and when the council does something about it, we complain and question their methods.
I know some innocent folks are victims of the list, but I think that there always will be some collateral damage to any measures taken. In my opinion its better to do something about it and take the collateral damage than not do anything about it at all.
It's a good thing that the council decided not to ban anyone because I am sure there are some innocent folks in that mess.
So once again, kudos to the SC. |
totally agree with the above.
I can see that the "posthumous type defense" as mentioned by art will be used by others.So therefore it would be impossible for SC to treat him differently to the others by just taking his word alone.
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't.
Also we here that he doesn't care about votes they mean little to him....so why did he vote at all? it all points to him trying to help the score of someone who's style he liked.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 14:52:47. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:52:34 PM · #434 |
Yes, it would really be hurtful to be one of the people that was "accused" (whether rights were suspended or not).
HOWEVER, I'm certain those same people would be really upset (perhaps more upset) if they found out that their entry missed a ribbon because someone else was voting unfairly as a result of site council not take measures because they were worried about the backlash.
Now, I know it's easy to say when it's not me being targeted but I think I'd rather have my rights temporarily suspended (even unfairly) than constantly wonder if I was wasting my time entering challenges because of a lot of unfair voting going unchecked. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:54:49 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by Kimmymac:
I just joined in Oct.2009! I'm leaving! I don't think any of this is right! I have been looking & I have found a much better site then this! Good luck to all of you! |
I've been following this thread and went to lunch today with a pretty gloomy attitude about DPC. But, as I was listening to the radio and pondering all of the truly terrible things happening around us these days, it occurred to me that the great thing about this site, and community, is that so many passionate people are willing to fight to keep it going. At $25 a year nobody is getting rich at this, so it's clearly a work of passion. The SC is made of volunteers who are doing their best to keep things fair and under control.  posthumous is fighting for his right to vote on what he feels is great photography, even if it runs counter to the masses. There are at least a dozen other names on this thread that are familiar because of their loyalty and dedication. While this conflict is bit painful, that fact that they continue to battle is far better than having everybody just give up. Great things don't come easy and making them last is even harder. I'm glad that all of your are still here battling this out. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:55:45 PM · #436 |
| In a perfect world we should gather all of chromeydome's posts on this topic into a single location so they don't get lost in the pages of discussion posted so far; they are masterpieces of good sense and we should not risk missing them. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:56:17 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
what has been done here, is causing WAY more damage to the community than the ever-present perception by some that voting is tainted (which will never change, by the way). |
Those with suspensions were asked to contact us via ticket if they wanted to discuss it, and NOT to air dirty laundry in the forums. A few have done that, and we're evaluating their cases, however a few others chose to deliberately raise a public stink about it. THAT causes more damage to the community than privately discussing the issue with those who can actually do something about it, and showing how an unusual pattern might be consistent with unusual tastes, etc. If a mistake was made (always possible), a private resolution will yield a better outcome than rounding up a mob of supporters. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:57:49 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't. |
But there are many site members that have a certain style that after being here for a time some of us can identify it. So once again, do we vote those low, high, or just skip them and further bias the vote in some other fashion? This just pushes the curve in another direction. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 02:58:15 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
In a perfect world we should gather all of chromeydome's posts on this topic into a single location so they don't get lost in the pages of discussion posted so far; they are masterpieces of good sense and we should not risk missing them. |
In a perfect world all this thread would not even be necessary...:)
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:00:03. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:02:48 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
what has been done here, is causing WAY more damage to the community than the ever-present perception by some that voting is tainted (which will never change, by the way). |
Those with suspensions were asked to contact us via ticket if they wanted to discuss it, and NOT to air dirty laundry in the forums. A few have done that, and we're evaluating their cases, however a few others chose to deliberately raise a public stink about it. THAT causes more damage to the community than privately discussing the issue with those who can actually do something about it, and showing how an unusual pattern might be consistent with unusual tastes, etc. If a mistake was made (always possible), a private resolution will yield a better outcome than rounding up a mob of supporters. |
You're wrong on my email Shannon. The email said to not use a ticket or a PM only to reply to the email. I did that and waited for over twelve hours before I finally gave in. And last night any one of the SC that was on could have said something to me but evidently dragging up Don's stuff was more important. FYI, my wife got her answer today and I am still waiting but I'm sure now what the issue is. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:04:00 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
2. SC should be commended for the effort and attempt to root out improper voting. The stubborn reliance on statistics to convict before an explanation is even solicited, much less considered, is wrong. |
I'm trying to picture someone's response when they get a PM "We are considering suspending you because ___________. Please justify your actions. Sincerely, SC"
By relying on statistics and allowing people to appeal/discuss their situation via the Ticket system we treat everyone equally, and avoid the otherwise inevitable accusations that we "play favorites" and do not apply site justice fairly.
Everyone who was suspended or warned had the opportunity to reply directly to the SC, to offer up any explanation or mitigating circumstances which would call for a reconsideration of any action, and in some cases were specifically invited to do so.
Instead, a few people chose to vent their hurt feelings here (instead of starting a Rant thread of their own) and turned this announcement into a virtual referendum, not unlike -- in tone and spin -- recent electoral politics. :-( |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:08:24 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I, really have not a lot to say about this whole debacle, to be honest, besides one thing:
It really, really, REALLY, highlights the massive schism that exists on this website, in many places, amongst many people, in so many areas.
Good or bad, for the community or for individuals, this announcement and subsequent fall-out will be, in the end, important. |
Too many freakin' commas, dude. :-) |
l, o, l. :) |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:09:47 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to picture someone's response when they get a PM "We are considering suspending you because ___________. Please justify your actions. Sincerely, SC" |
that would have been a lot nicer than what I got...basically I got the you have been tried and convicted letter, knowing what I had done, like I do now, would have helped me sleep better instead of the 3 hours I got. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:12:00 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those with suspensions were asked to contact us via ticket if they wanted to discuss it, and NOT to air dirty laundry in the forums. A few have done that, and we're evaluating their cases, however a few others chose to deliberately raise a public stink about it. THAT causes more damage to the community than privately discussing the issue with those who can actually do something about it, and showing how an unusual pattern might be consistent with unusual tastes, etc. If a mistake was made (always possible), a private resolution will yield a better outcome than rounding up a mob of supporters. |
This doesn't really compute with me - especially coming from you Shannon. I think the airing in public is tremendously democratising. I say 'especially from you' because I've always admired the way that you are prepared to stand up for decisions in the forums (time and time again) no matter how hot it gets.
Please don't underestimate the value such transparency brings to the site or your role in that. You are often key in such debates - your 'stubbornness' (couldn't think of a kinder word) ensures that the debates have rigour and that people need to build a solid argument to have credibility - and often, out of these debates, comes clarity and understanding (at least by the end).
I for one am glad this is being drawn out like this - far better than a ruling followed by silence. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:13:51 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to picture someone's response when they get a PM "We are considering suspending you because ___________. Please justify your actions. Sincerely, SC" |
that would have been a lot nicer than what I got...basically I got the you have been tried and convicted letter, knowing what I had done, like I do now, would have helped me sleep better instead of the 3 hours I got. |
I'll note your opinion. Maybe when this specific situation settles down we should run a poll on that question. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:16:31 PM · #446 |
| thank you- your efforts are much appreciated |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:22:05 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
what has been done here, is causing WAY more damage to the community than the ever-present perception by some that voting is tainted (which will never change, by the way). |
Those with suspensions were asked to contact us via ticket if they wanted to discuss it, and NOT to air dirty laundry in the forums. A few have done that, and we're evaluating their cases, however a few others chose to deliberately raise a public stink about it. THAT causes more damage to the community than privately discussing the issue with those who can actually do something about it, and showing how an unusual pattern might be consistent with unusual tastes, etc. If a mistake was made (always possible), a private resolution will yield a better outcome than rounding up a mob of supporters. |
point conceded, but unrealistic to have such a sweeping effort and expect it to remain quiet. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:22:09 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
What gets me, posthumous has admitted to suspecting or knowing the owner of the image and still voted on it? he should not have voted on it, I know myself I wouldn't. |
Why shouldn't he? It's not against the voting rules. Besides, he said on the entries where he was sure it was pointandshoot's photo he gave it a lower score than he normally would have. Wouldn't cheaters do the exact opposite of that?
Originally posted by keegbow:
Also we here that he doesn't care about votes they mean little to him....so why did he vote at all? it all points to him trying to help the score of someone who's style he liked. |
He's given many ribbons and high scores to others as well (RKT, Goodman, etc). The common theme is these photographs have more depth to them. They're not the one night stand photos that get newbies in a frenzy and win these challenges. That's not a style inasmuch as it's a greater appreciation for non-commercial photography.
Message edited by author 2010-04-01 15:24:27. |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:27:46 PM · #449 |
| So OK, That's the 10 voters dealt with. So when do we start on the 1 voters? |
|
|
|
04/01/2010 03:28:10 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by MAK:
So OK, That's the 10 voters dealt with. So when do we start on the 1 voters? |
AMEN, sister! |
|
