| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 07:19:38 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It is not agaist the rules to vote on images when you know who the photograper is, as long as you vote honestly. |
You are ridiculous. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:20:07 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Is it just me? Or does it seem that the same people who either participated in or defended the "Abstract Club" in this thread for their little stunt in the Product challenge are the same ones here that are "disgusted, appalled, disturbed, sad, wronged, disappointed, surprised at who's involved, and threatening to leave"?
Funny, when others felt the same about that little clique, using the exact same words they were called "childish, narrow, whiney," and told to "get over it, move on, get a life, don't take things so seriously" for taking issue with what they did.
The irony is overwhelming. |
Are you still suspended for complaining about the abstract entries? Didn't think so. I think I'm done with this site anyway. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:24:27 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Any how many votes did you cast while knowing the photog after you ID'd the image with a favorite? |
Several, and none of them were 1's. I don't give out 1 votes, ever. It is not agaist the rules to vote on images when you know who the photograper is, as long as you vote honestly. If you must know, the abstract entries in the Product challenge got 3s and 4s from me. |
Let's see... We saw you manipulating a loophole in the system, during voting, to identify which photographers had made these entries. Having that knowledge to hand, you voted on them. But it's OK because you voted "honestly". We know that, because you told us, just now.
Now Don says he DIDN'T know these were Pointandshoot's images, but that he liked them, and gave them 10's, which is what he does with the images he gives his Posthumous Ribbons to. But apparently you KNOW he didn't do that "honestly"? How?
I am underwhelmed by you, sir.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:31:22 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Any how many votes did you cast while knowing the photog after you ID'd the image with a favorite? |
Several, and none of them were 1's. I don't give out 1 votes, ever. It is not agaist the rules to vote on images when you know who the photograper is, as long as you vote honestly. If you must know, the abstract entries in the Product challenge got 3s and 4s from me. |
Let's see... We saw you manipulating a loophole in the system, during voting, to identify which photographers had made these entries. Having that knowledge to hand, you voted on them. But it's OK because you voted "honestly". We know that, because you told us, just now.
Now Don says he DIDN'T know these were Pointandshoot's images, but that he liked them, and gave them 10's, which is what he does with the images he gives his Posthumous Ribbons to. But apparently you KNOW he didn't do that "honestly"? How?
I am underwhelmed by you, sir.
R. |
Sheesh...
Be it right or wrong. The abstract club initiative clearly gave a bad taste with many of the members and I'm 100% certain that this initiative does not help getting members or ensure their renewals. I'm not 100% sure however that it (and the unpleasant atmosphere it has created) wont have the opposite effect and I'm disappointed that no one owns up to it and at least suggest it may not have been the smartest chess move in DPC history.
Life goes on... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:32:06 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Any how many votes did you cast while knowing the photog after you ID'd the image with a favorite? |
Several, and none of them were 1's. I don't give out 1 votes, ever. It is not agaist the rules to vote on images when you know who the photograper is, as long as you vote honestly. If you must know, the abstract entries in the Product challenge got 3s and 4s from me. |
Let's see... We saw you manipulating a loophole in the system, during voting, to identify which photographers had made these entries. Having that knowledge to hand, you voted on them. But it's OK because you voted "honestly". We know that, because you told us, just now.
Now Don says he DIDN'T know these were Pointandshoot's images, but that he liked them, and gave them 10's, which is what he does with the images he gives his Posthumous Ribbons to. But apparently you KNOW he didn't do that "honestly"? How?
I am underwhelmed by you, sir.
R. |
I would love to hear an answer to this... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:35:27 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I'm disappointed that no one owns up to it and at least suggest it may not have been the smartest chess move in DPC history.
Life goes on... |
To the idea of abstracts? That was my idea...posted it in the last thread. MY IDEA. Clear? This thread has nothing to do with that. Wendy's suspension is proof of that.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:36:03 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by frisca:
are we really trying the SC (and posthumous) in the court of public opinion without actually looking at the numbers? I can see that Don is disappointed and upset by the decision, but its soundly based. If he wants to discuss it fully with us, he knows how to reach us. I doubt he wants us to post those numbers here, thought it certainly would "exonerate" SC from malfeasance as we have been accused of here.
This is not an April Fool's joke. We got so much grief for just moving the update button one year, I can't imagine what we'd see if we accused people of this sort of thing falsely as a "joke" |
It's annoying to see people arguing over something they can't see. Please post the data. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:41:20 PM · #133 |
I have some questions now:
Is there a plan from SC in how to play this? Should we expect more detailed information or will all be conducted behind closed doors?
Is this discussion useful in conveying a mood?
Does a mood (such as this) within a section of the community count for anything?
Was this reaction anticipated? Is there a plan to ride it out or listen to views and consider whether any action is needed?
On a separate note - In terms of non-anonymous voting, I give out scores to images when I know who they're from all the time - I see them on 1x first, or I recognise the subject, or I recognise the style - heck, I gave  jimirose a 10 for his Main Street when I already knew it was his (just as I would've if I hadn't - it would've been wrong not to!). I work in Higher Education, people's degrees are awarded on the back of non-anonymous assessment all of the time (including peer assessment); if we can manage the process for degrees - I'm sure we can manage to vote on a few dozen photos with adequate rigour, especially since photographic assessment is necessarily subjective. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:47:17 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
... On a separate note - In terms of non-anonymous voting, I give out scores to images when I know who they're from all the time ... |
There's no crime in this. I used to not vote on images if I knew the identity of the photographer until Shannon posted that this was totally legal if done honestly. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:47:34 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Are you still suspended for complaining about the abstract entries? Didn't think so. I think I'm done with this site anyway. |
Don't leave yet. I'm having a going away party. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:47:40 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I'm disappointed that no one owns up to it and at least suggest it may not have been the smartest chess move in DPC history.
Life goes on... |
To the idea of abstracts? That was my idea...posted it in the last thread. MY IDEA. Clear? This thread has nothing to do with that. Wendy's suspension is proof of that. |
I was not suspended -- I was warned. I posted here because I found it unfair and unjust. I posted here because it has taken the fun out of the site. I posted because I didn't know if I wanted to be a part of this anymore. I posted because I saw no problem with the votes I had given and still see no problem with it. I posted because I'm not sure I can be comfortable in things I do on this site if this is their reaction to less than 30 votes with the highest being one 8 and one 9.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:50:05 PM · #137 |
| 50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:51:56 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
I dont think so and if it was it would be in very bad taste
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:53:08 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Sevlow:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
I dont think so and if it was it would be in very bad taste |
OK...50 pesos say this is a bad taste AF joke.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 19:53:53. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:53:55 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Sevlow:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
I dont think so and if it was it would be in very bad taste |
OK...50 pesos say this a bad taste AF joke. |
I would laugh! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:55:16 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Sevlow:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
I dont think so and if it was it would be in very bad taste |
OK...50 pesos say this a bad taste AF joke. |
I would laugh! |
That's why they picked you
Edited to add: They should have picked Simms
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 19:56:40. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:58:22 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by Sevlow:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
50 pesos say this is an AF joke. |
I dont think so and if it was it would be in very bad taste |
OK...50 pesos say this a bad taste AF joke. |
I would laugh! |
I would vote! |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:59:40 PM · #143 |
Below is my reply to langdon when I received the 6 months suspension period email.
Mr. langdon
I regret to inform you that Mr. T. Hadi is no longer with us.
if this is regarding any dues or outstanding balances?
Please contact me
A.F. Kizib
attorney at law
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:00:25 PM · #144 |
I have read all posts to this thread on and off since it has been created- I have stepped away to think and mull it over- and now I have to sit back and ask....
Can one truly eliminate 'false positives' 100%?
Personally, I think not. This just shows me that the SC and Landgon really have a truly difficult job. In protecting a 'fair and balanced' vote principle there may be times where 'innocent' voting due to strong style preference is going to land some individuals into trouble. For the 3 photographers who have stepped forth I think the term we should apply at the moment is they have been suspended for 'unfair' voting. I like Scalvert's term right now for I am not ready to convict these particular artists under the term cheating given that their styles, community participation, and preferences point to them liking a style that is not the majority favored and/or they have demonstrated community spirit.
What is starting to disturb me is that WHEN does liking a particular style, be it mainstream or out-of-the box conceptual, fall into a consistent pattern that can be read on a measuring stick as an "attempt to manipulate the vote for yourself or others"?
Hmmm, I am beginning to wonder what my voting pattern shows....and yes like other members who have posted here to this thread it has me questioning whether it is safe to vote for fear of incrimination.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 21:01:13. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:01:07 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by yanko:
Are you still suspended for complaining about the abstract entries? Didn't think so. I think I'm done with this site anyway. |
Don't leave yet. I'm having a going away party. |
PLEASE DON'T LEAVE, BOTH OF YOU STAY!!! We have lost some great people in the past and I would hate to see more leave. I don't know what's all going on; I don't even know who was suspended or banned. I hope all this does not narrow the voting spectrum more than it has been. I also believe we need more open dialog. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:01:15 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
Below is my reply to langdon when I received the 6 months suspension period email.
Mr. langdon
I regret to inform you that Mr. T. Hadi is no longer with us.
if this is regarding any dues or outstanding balances?
Please contact me
A.F. Kizib
attorney at law |
See? any takers on my bet? |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:03:14 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by HighNooner:
Below is my reply to langdon when I received the 6 months suspension period email.
Mr. langdon
I regret to inform you that Mr. T. Hadi is no longer with us.
if this is regarding any dues or outstanding balances?
Please contact me
A.F. Kizib
attorney at law |
That should fool him, as long as he isn't reading this thread that he started |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:05:47 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I don't even know who was suspended or banned. |
They should've banned them appropriately in the banning thread :p |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:10:48 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I guess any of us with non-mainstream tastes will tend to vote higher on non-mainstream images, which by definition will be a minority of images by a minority of photographers. So those of us with non-mainstream tastes are more susceptible to the "algorithm" the longer we continue to vote. It seems doubtful that any such voting influenced outcomes in the ribbon category.
So, is an honest attempt by the SC to find colluding cheaters also inadvertently scooping up those on the fringe simply for their taste in photography? If this is so, a modification to the "algorithm" is in order: perhaps a collective review by the SC on votes that could be simply directed at a common style or type of imagery, rather than a specific photographer. And, in the cases where this is possibly the situation, confirm no net meaningful effect in the voting outcome overall, and with-hold the sanctions (keep a "watch list" if you must).
As a form of protest, we can with-hold all voting on any challenges, I suppose. I really need to consider the usefulness of this site if contributors like posthumous can be banned for consistently liking the work of contributors like pointandshoot.
Do we dare not vote on images, styles, genres of photography that we like? Do we dare not enter images of potentially recognizable style, content, or genre for fear that those who consistently enjoy our work will be banned?
I guess one thing to do is stop voting entirely, but acknowledge and recognize those images we do like in a new "SUPPRESSED BY THE ALGORITHM" thread.
Of course, the other thing to do is Vote With Our Feet. The Nattering Nabobs Of Negativity have become increasingly noisy of late, clamoring, as they do, for Conformity, Rigidity, and Enforcement. It is an objective fact for me that this place has become more work than fun, more negative than positive, and the time I have been spending here has already dropped an order of magnitude over the past year. Maybe a new place is needed, with less static and noise. What's the frequency, Kenneth?
But seriously, say it with me now: "Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. ????"
DPC: it may be time to stick a swastika on it and call it Done. |
Forgive me for quoting myself -- I want to add a clarification:
I don't intend, nor do I think others here intend, to impune the motives, the honor, the intentions of the SC in this matter. I DO INTEND to Question the METHODOLOGY and the RESULT of a well-intentioned effort. I do not suspect the SC of a coordinated effort to suppress any minority of membership defined by taste, genre, style, interests--only a minority of cheaters is targeted. However, I sincerely question the accuracy of their methods, the thoroughness of their thinking and application of same in this instance--the collateral damage here seems unthinkable to me, and the rules/criteria as explained, only reinforce my concerns. As it stands, I am convinced that the only reason I have not received a similar notice is simply because I have participated in voting significantly less over the past year.
I have often stood with and supported the SC when they were assailed in threads such as these. I never have, and do not today, consider them in any way to be The Enemy. But today I stand up to ask if they have simply made mistakes in judgement, application of ill-considered methodology, and whether this methodology will stand, and will continue to be applied in the future in the same manner as described. If mistakes are admitted, methodologies are corrected--all is well. If methodologies are explained further, clarified adequately, and found to be acceptable after all, all is well.
But the current situation, as it stands, as it has been explained, with the methodology as understood by the general membership in this thread, is, to me, unacceptable. I do not doubt the SC's intentions or honor, but I sincerely question their correctness in this instance. A review and detailed explanation is warranted. With the methodology as I perceive/interpret it based upon information available so far, there is no further place for me here, no future.... |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 08:16:09 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by HighNooner:
Below is my reply to langdon when I received the 6 months suspension period email.
Mr. langdon
I regret to inform you that Mr. T. Hadi is no longer with us.
if this is regarding any dues or outstanding balances?
Please contact me
A.F. Kizib
attorney at law |
See? any takers on my bet? |
After last years AF joke, I wouldn't be surprised at all! |
|
