| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/23/2007 07:39:14 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
And I think my reference to driver's licensing applies to that as well. I did not read the rules before voting. And no, I am not saying that this is an excuse for me. I am saying that although it is there, I just never read them. I have not read a lot of the rules and regs here except for Basic, Advanced, and Expert Editing.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
That's why I also included the link to the challenge voting guidelines. |
|
The rules are there. If you don't read them, the responsibility is still yours. As you said, it doesn't excuse you. The point that individual warnings shouldn't be *expected*.. stands.
I just don't get why people continue to want to be babied through stuff like this? Reaching into society at large. Where is the personal responsibility today? |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:40:36 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by ursula:
But that sounds like you're saying that in order to vote on challenge entries here people would need to pass a course, or take a test first? That's just not doable on a website like this. |
You'll have to show me where I said that. If so, I should retract it.
I was making a counter comparison. It is assumed that someone who is caught speeding has a driver's license. If they do have a driver's license, then they have been thru training where they learn about the laws of speeding and have most likely had to do some reading since there is a written part of the test.
Here, you cannot make the assumption that the rules have been read, simply because they are posted on the site OR because a thread was started.
That is what I was trying to say. Looks even worse now than when I started.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:43:10 PM · #178 |
But that sounds like you're saying that in order to vote on challenge entries here people would need to pass a course, or take a test first? That's just not doable on a website like this.
I think that it is more of a statement that you should know the rules of the site before participating. There is no test required just common sense, know the rules of the game before you play. I know reading instructions/rules/user manuels are boring but they are there for a reason. Ignorance of the rules, for whatever reason, is not an excuse for breaking them.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:45:01 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
The rules are there. If you don't read them, the responsibility is still yours. As you said, it doesn't excuse you. The point that individual warnings shouldn't be *expected*.. stands.
I just don't get why people continue to want to be babied through stuff like this? Reaching into society at large. Where is the personal responsibility today? |
I've taken responsibility for what happened and I have NOT ONCE shifted the blame to anyone. Never have I said I "expected" a warning. I just saw an inference that, oh people were warned and yet there are STILL people violating the rules. My initial post was to clarify whether or not individual warnings were sent. Then I saw that these "warnings" were posted in threads that I have never read. And I already stated that I have not read the rules.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:46:10 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by ursula:
But that sounds like you're saying that in order to vote on challenge entries here people would need to pass a course, or take a test first? That's just not doable on a website like this. |
Here, you cannot make the assumption that the rules have been read, simply because they are posted on the site OR because a thread was started.
|
Actually.. that is an assumption that has to be made. If you *choose* not to read the rules that are always there, that is your choice. But SC has to assume everyone has, or what is the point of having the rules? They are enforceable *NO MATTER WHAT*. You don't get a "get out of jail free" card for claiming ignorance. (edit to clarify that I don't mean you personally)
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:48:53. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:47:21 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by Artyste:
The rules are there. If you don't read them, the responsibility is still yours. As you said, it doesn't excuse you. The point that individual warnings shouldn't be *expected*.. stands.
I just don't get why people continue to want to be babied through stuff like this? Reaching into society at large. Where is the personal responsibility today? |
I've taken responsibility for what happened and I have NOT ONCE shifted the blame to anyone. Never have I said I "expected" a warning. I just saw an inference that, oh people were warned and yet there are STILL people violating the rules. My initial post was to clarify whether or not individual warnings were sent. Then I saw that these "warnings" were posted in threads that I have never read. And I already stated that I have not read the rules. |
Then why keep arguing? lol.
*EDIT* sorry, I wanted to also clarify that that final sentence about personal responsibility and being babied was NOT a direct reference towards colorcarnival herself.. but at the general attitude I've been seeing lately. I agree that colorcarnvial *did* take responsibility and I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear that I didn't mean her personally.
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 19:55:16. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:49:50 PM · #182 |
Let's give colorcarnival a break here, OK? She's been honest and forthright, and given us a reason to appreciate her position.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:51:16 PM · #183 |
Sorry, Michelle. I was just stirring the pot. Apparently it became a cauldron.
;o)
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 07:55:43 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by ursula:
But that sounds like you're saying that in order to vote on challenge entries here people would need to pass a course, or take a test first? That's just not doable on a website like this. |
You'll have to show me where I said that. If so, I should retract it.
I was making a counter comparison. It is assumed that someone who is caught speeding has a driver's license. If they do have a driver's license, then they have been thru training where they learn about the laws of speeding and have most likely had to do some reading since there is a written part of the test.
Here, you cannot make the assumption that the rules have been read, simply because they are posted on the site OR because a thread was started.
That is what I was trying to say. Looks even worse now than when I started. |
OK. :)
I think we make that assumption, that is, that people will read the rules before submitting, voting and so on. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:00:19 PM · #185 |
When you submit a challenge entry, you must check off a box which certifies that you've read the rules.
Doesn't apply to those who just vote but have never submitted though ... : ( |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:00:34 PM · #186 |
See..
This is what I don't understand..
If you've never seen the shot before, why does it matter whether or not you vote on it?
I mean,
my brother Vince once had an account here and I voted on his images all of the time without getting in trouble.
I never knew there was a rule against it.
Why should it matter if you've never seen the photograph before??
It isn't hard to tell whose shots are who's around here.
Several photographers have adopted a certain style and their photographs become easy to pick out.
I could give out a list of names, but I'll restrain myself.
How is this any different?
Someone help me understand this so I don't wake up one morning and find myself banned.. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:03:18 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
See..
This is what I don't understand..
If you've never seen the shot before, why does it matter whether or not you vote on it?
I mean,
my brother Vince once had an account here and I voted on his images all of the time without getting in trouble.
I never knew there was a rule against it.
Why should it matter if you've never seen the photograph before??
It isn't hard to tell whose shots are who's around here.
Several photographers have adopted a certain style and their photographs become easy to pick out.
I could give out a list of names, but I'll restrain myself.
How is this any different?
Someone help me understand this so I don't wake up one morning and find myself banned.. |
It doesn't matter if you've seen the shot or not, all that matters is that you vote fairly and as unbiased as possible regardless of whether you know who shot it or not. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:04:27 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When you submit a challenge entry, you must check off a box which certifies that you've read the rules.
Doesn't apply to those who just vote but have never submitted though ... : ( |
omg lol. I just check the boxes. Well that tells you the depth of my reading skills.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:16:27 PM · #189 |
There seems to be a little disconnect going on around here. Seems to me that the current round of suspensions were perhaps surprising to some because they were aimed at people with good (but misguided) intentions rather than the selfish self-promoters just out to boost their own score.
I'm not suggesting that their conduct should be tolerated or encouraged, just that it seems a little unfair to lump the two groups together in discussing what they did, as I don't think the one is nearly as bad as the other. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:17:54 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Beautiful-Joe:
See..
This is what I don't understand..
If you've never seen the shot before, why does it matter whether or not you vote on it?
I mean,
my brother Vince once had an account here and I voted on his images all of the time without getting in trouble.
I never knew there was a rule against it.
Why should it matter if you've never seen the photograph before??
It isn't hard to tell whose shots are who's around here.
Several photographers have adopted a certain style and their photographs become easy to pick out.
I could give out a list of names, but I'll restrain myself.
How is this any different?
Someone help me understand this so I don't wake up one morning and find myself banned.. |
Hi Joe,
Here's the thing, there is a difference between casting one or a few reasonable votes on an image(s) you've never seen before which happens to belong to someone you "know" or that was/were submitted by a photographer whose style you might recognize and really really like --- and ---- casting multiple and repeated high votes over a period of time (and in some cases also receiving them) on images where a reasonable person would conclude that those votes could not have been fairly given.
Every effort was made to give the voters the benefit of reasonable doubt. If there was any way that a voting pattern could be explained as liking a particular style or whatnot, we elected to reserve judgment in those cases.
The instances we are addressing here were far, far, far beyond "normal." The types of patterns that resulted in consequence represented constant and repeated abnormal voting over multiple challenges -- statistical improbabilities if you will.
Again, these situations represented less than 1% of all our active users; the vast majority of us have nothing to fear if we are voting honestly and fairly and on the image rather than the photographer.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:21:56 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
There seems to be a little disconnect going on around here. Seems to me that the current round of suspensions were perhaps surprising to some because they were aimed at people with good (but misguided) intentions rather than the selfish self-promoters just out to boost their own score.
I'm not suggesting that their conduct should be tolerated or encouraged, just that it seems a little unfair to lump the two groups together in discussing what they did, as I don't think the one is nearly as bad as the other. |
This is a very good point. Although this might look like one giant sweep, different situations were handled differently. You might recall that the OP mentioned a "range" of consquences starting with warnings (for most people) up to suspension of certain site privileges, depending on the particular nature of the voting pattern. By this I mean people who were only receiving friend votes did not receive the same penalty as people who were both giving and receiving friend votes with more than one person.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:22:10 PM · #192 |
Okay.
That's good..
I was a bit concerned..
I think I understand. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:25:09 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by L2:
Every effort was made to give the voters the benefit of reasonable doubt. If there was any way that a voting pattern could be explained as liking a particular style or whatnot, we elected to reserve judgment in those cases. |
Just curious ... were the voters given a chance to explain their votes before being hit with the suspension? Some earlier posts in the thread suggest not. If not, you might want to consider doing that. Based on your description of what went down, it probably wouldn't change the outcome, but might make the process seem more fair to those affected.
edit to clarify
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 20:29:47. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:31:02 PM · #194 |
| No, but several have contacted us via the ticket system. We've read each one (from the "I'm really sorry. Won't happen again" to the "This is wrong, review the numbers") and will continue to do so. If someone has compelling evidence for their defense, it will be considered. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:38:33 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Originally posted by L2:
Every effort was made to give the voters the benefit of reasonable doubt. If there was any way that a voting pattern could be explained as liking a particular style or whatnot, we elected to reserve judgment in those cases. |
Just curious ... were the voters given a chance to explain their votes before being hit with the suspension? Some earlier posts in the thread suggest not. |
For those situations where the voter received more than a warning, the evidence is basically irrefutable. No system is infallible, though, and if a voter feels there is additional evidence that should be considered and presents that evidence with a request for an appeal, of course the situation can (and will) be re-reviewed to make absolutely certain that the resolution of the situation is fair to everyone -- including the Vast Majority of those members/users of the site whose voting patterns is above reproach.
I'd also like to point out something that people are missing - in previous instances of penalty issuance, it was a huge deal with challenge placement recalculations and major drama. The goal here with our automation of a voting pattern review process is to catch up with people who are merely misguided rather than malicious BEFORE we have another monster nightmare. No one on the SC really wants to suspend anyone for anything - this site is supposed to fun, right? So if we can have a system where we can detect abnormal patterns (and give warnings instead of suspensions) before they turn into nasty cheating problems, that's good for everyone, right?
Please don't walk away from this thread thinking vote monitoring is over "until the next time." This process will be repeated with regularity going forward.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:41:26 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Also, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that people *have* already been warned. Multiple times. In multiple threads. |
Are you talking about specific people being directly being warned by SC or just people in general being warned like in threads?
I was never warned by SC until last night with my 4 week suspension. |
In general. You don't need to have specific, personal warnings. If the general warning is "Don't vote higher based on the photographer" or some variation thereof.. then it's obvious that you *don't do it*. No?
You shouldn't have to be told on an individual scale. |
Actually if people bother to read the rules they would have been told individually that vote tampering isn't allowed. However maybe the voting rules should be placed on the voting page so it's more obvious.
ETA: Also, I'm a little slow catching up on this thread. :P
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 20:51:07. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:49:44 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
So you go from 120 votes required to 300 in such a free study. Is adding 180 clicks of the mouse really all that much to ask? |
Yes. |
OK, I have a solution. Get Firefox and the add-on that allows you to use your number keys to vote. There, now everyone should be happy. By the way, Kelly, you're very pretty. You have my favorite avatar pic.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 08:58:17 PM · #198 |
My Statistically Favorite Photographer has never won a ribbon...... cool
But Question, alot of my favorites appear to have not won a ribbon and I have alot of 10s on my statistically favorite photos.... Now I am not voting because I knows whos photo is whos, but by what I like am I in danger of a ban, cause I think I voted like i take pictures, outside the box. (or outside of the room the box is in, or maybe outside the house the room with the box is in). Just a question. I like it here to much to be banned. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 09:01:08 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by liltritter:
My Statistically Favorite Photographer has never won a ribbon...... cool
But Question, alot of my favorites appear to have not won a ribbon and I have alot of 10s on my statistically favorite photos.... Now I am not voting because I knows whos photo is whos, but by what I like am I in danger of a ban, cause I think I voted like i take pictures, outside the box. (or outside of the room the box is in, or maybe outside the house the room with the box is in). Just a question. I like it here to much to be banned. |
Nobody is saying you can't vote high on photos that finish poorly. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 09:18:50 PM · #200 |
My concern is that several photographers on this site have VERY distinctive styles or use certain models or locations that are very noticeable. With the current voter monitoring situation, I know I will be very reluctant to vote on any entries from these photographers (good or bad) because I don't want to be banned. I am sure others feel the same way. I can think of many photogs such as  chele,  larus, toyan, xXxscarletxXx, and escapetooz and others that are extremely easy to pick out due to subject matter or their face. I must admit that I will likely no longer vote on their entries due to concerns that I will be singled out for voting favoritism. I find this an extreme shame.
My opinion is that this new edict from the SC has put an unnecessary and unfortunate pressure on people who vote in challenges. This is making the voting process an unhappy occurence. I probably will end up voting and commenting less. A true shame...
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by liltritter:
My Statistically Favorite Photographer has never won a ribbon...... cool
But Question, alot of my favorites appear to have not won a ribbon and I have alot of 10s on my statistically favorite photos.... Now I am not voting because I knows whos photo is whos, but by what I like am I in danger of a ban, cause I think I voted like i take pictures, outside the box. (or outside of the room the box is in, or maybe outside the house the room with the box is in). Just a question. I like it here to much to be banned. |
Nobody is saying you can't vote high on photos that finish poorly. |
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 21:21:01. |
|
