| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2004 12:13:59 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by josevillacorte:
I guess honesty comes at a price in this site.
|
Honesty always comes at a price. Doing the right thing is not always easy.
I'm rather bothered by the idea that being honest then somehow absolves you of responsibility for your actions. All actions good or bad have consiquences.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:59:23 AM · #2 |
Sorry to bump this... just thought this was sort of relevant. Do you all remember dertyklobb ?
Check this forum.
Novetan's was also DQ'ed for submitting an entry "out of date".
Read this forum.
FYI: Honesty comes at a price in this site.
Edit: retyped, added link
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 12:17:42.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 11:10:12 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I propose we shoot him. |
Nah, it'll leave a big stain on the carpet and I don't think Drew wants to spring for cleaners. :p
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 11:11:42.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:59:13 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:53:06 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:42:34 AM · #6 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to fill in the "Date of Exposure" box when you submit a challenge photo? With at least that in mind, this isn't a case of simply not reading the rules - it's a case of intentionally disregarding them just to see how an old photo would fare in the competition.
It's been done many times before. I doubt he cares at all that he was DQ'ed - he seems happy that one of his photos (presumably it was one of his photos) was well liked despite its intentionally illegal nature. It's a complete waste of everyone else's time and energy without any justification. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 10:02:58 AM · #7 |
You don't see a difference between someone's camera resetting so one of their photos has the wrong date, and someone at DPC for over a year "not thinking the rule mattered very much" and deliberately submitting a passel o' illegal pics? I don't think that has anything to do with cultural procilivities or failure to read the entire rules -- it says right there on the submit page between which dates the photo must have been submitted -- it smacks to me of complete disrespect for the site and those of us who follow the rules.
It's not like we're setting up a speed trap or anything ... I will forgive many mistakes but I'm not allowed to tolerate cheating. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 09:49:25 AM · #8 |
I'm not missing it, I think you are, Karen. In Asian countries, people "laugh" about their mistakes. It is a way of saying "whoops." Having spent a year there, I have an idea that he may have some English language skill problems and also be responding as is proper in his own culture.
I agree that he should 'play fair' and I'm NOT condoning his breaking of the rules, especially if he knew. However, I think Nazgul makes a good point about reading licenses - we ALL say we have. The only reason nobody cares is because Microsoft didn't catch you NOT reading them.
As far as terrentius bringing this post upon himself, he did. I understand that - I just think the double-standards around here when someone "oops, I screwed up, I think I'll quit dpc in shame" and we all (see Gina whats her face) "oh no don't leave - you're good!" and this guy saying "Whoooops, I got caught with an illegal pic! I'll move on and try again!" and we say "Well, we're watching. We're going to check out everything you do (see Labuda) and if you can't grovel better, we don't want you."
M |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:15:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I think the point has been drilled in enough. He lost a ribbon winning shot, y'all are going to drive him from the site for doing a boneheaded thing. As far as previous violations - let's get real. Does ANYONE want our entire past images challenged? In fact, I would guesstimate that the date/time stamp is wrong on perhaps 50-75% of the entries on this site. Are we going to remove those 50-75% just because lately SC is checking dates more closely?
I was entering again for awhile, but the last few weeks have put me off. I have skipped 6 in a row again now - not sure I want to enter when my camera settings, which keep resetting, may get me DQ'd. Or because I change batteries mid-shoot, I have two of the exact same pics and one is illegal on site.
The rules are the rules. Good. Let's follow them. He's been DQ'd - what MORE do you all want? Is this the part where he puts his tail between his legs and runs off site and everyone says "oh well ... if you want to really beg and plead we may someday actually forgive you but if you place in the top 15 again, we're going to DQ you just to see if you shot a legal shot"?
*puke*
To think, I reupped for this. |
Mavrik, you are missing the point. Do you not see that this guy is toying with all of those that are being honest and just want to have fun here?
He has reposted to this thread just to conjure up attention when the thread was on its way to dying out - several times.
I have been ignoring it, but others will not.
I don't think anyone is here to beat anyone into the ground.
The only thing that should be putting you off is nonsense like this, not the honest people who just want to play fair.
I don't see him putting his tail between his legs. I see him waiving a flag with a smirk on his face.
If he wants to stay, great. Play fair.
And that goes for anyone and everyone.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:36:17 AM · #10 |
I think the point has been drilled in enough. He lost a ribbon winning shot, y'all are going to drive him from the site for doing a boneheaded thing. As far as previous violations - let's get real. Does ANYONE want our entire past images challenged? In fact, I would guesstimate that the date/time stamp is wrong on perhaps 50-75% of the entries on this site. Are we going to remove those 50-75% just because lately SC is checking dates more closely?
I was entering again for awhile, but the last few weeks have put me off. I have skipped 6 in a row again now - not sure I want to enter when my camera settings, which keep resetting, may get me DQ'd. Or because I change batteries mid-shoot, I have two of the exact same pics and one is illegal on site.
The rules are the rules. Good. Let's follow them. He's been DQ'd - what MORE do you all want? Is this the part where he puts his tail between his legs and runs off site and everyone says "oh well ... if you want to really beg and plead we may someday actually forgive you but if you place in the top 15 again, we're going to DQ you just to see if you shot a legal shot"?
*puke*
To think, I reupped for this. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:03:06 AM · #11 |
Once again (and to clarify my previous statement), if you have other entries, past or present, which upon reading the rules you now know violate them, I would strongly recommend contacting us (off the public board) and letting us know which ones.
Whether you are forthcoming in this will impact the consequences of any further rule violations discovered.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:50:19 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
NEED to be validated ... |
Absolutely, I'm not saying do NOT dq his (or anyones) entry based on not knowing the rules. All I'm saying is don't keep pounding on the guy for a mistake that he has already admitted happened. And if he has suggested that other entries are from different dates also (outside the challenge date range), then thank him for being honest and DQ them if needed, but don't rub his nose in the dirt for being honest. |
Statements like the following make me feel like my nose is being rubbed in the dirt.
Originally posted by terrentius:
Since my enter was disqualified due to shooting time problem, I fully accept the arrangement. Since many photo contests, as I know, don't consider the shooting time, but the photo itself. And I haven't received any disqualification for my previous photos. (The admin could check my record and delete them all.) So it made me think that this rule is not serious. |
|
Interesting...
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 04:22:42 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
NEED to be validated ... |
Absolutely, I'm not saying do NOT dq his (or anyones) entry based on not knowing the rules. All I'm saying is don't keep pounding on the guy for a mistake that he has already admitted happened. And if he has suggested that other entries are from different dates also (outside the challenge date range), then thank him for being honest and DQ them if needed, but don't rub his nose in the dirt for being honest. |
Statements like the following make me feel like my nose is being rubbed in the dirt.
Originally posted by terrentius:
Since my enter was disqualified due to shooting time problem, I fully accept the arrangement. Since many photo contests, as I know, don't consider the shooting time, but the photo itself. And I haven't received any disqualification for my previous photos. (The admin could check my record and delete them all.) So it made me think that this rule is not serious. |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:52:37 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
NEED to be validated ... |
Absolutely, I'm not saying do NOT dq his (or anyones) entry based on not knowing the rules. All I'm saying is don't keep pounding on the guy for a mistake that he has already admitted happened. And if he has suggested that other entries are from different dates also (outside the challenge date range), then thank him for being honest and DQ them if needed, but don't rub his nose in the dirt for being honest. |
So you berating labuda for not following the rules (Wrongfully Accused) is what exactly? Double standards? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:39:08 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
This guy did more than make an innocent mistake on the date. He said he hasn't read the rules but he checked a box on the submission form affirming that he had read them. He was perceived as disingenuous for saying he never received the e-mail requesting an original file while admitting he got the one that told him he was DQed; and for saying he had not visited the site since submitting when the SC had already said he had logged on during the 48 hrs period he had to submit his proof.
He dies dirty. |
Hi Coolhar,
I have admitted that it's my fault for not following the rules.
And I am not trying to complain anything.
I have explained enough and made myself clear.
I don't wanna waste more time on that.
Better hurry up for the next challenge.
Thanks for your opinion anyway.
Rds,
Terence |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:30:59 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
This guy did more than make an innocent mistake on the date. He said he hasn't read the rules but he checked a box on the submission form affirming that he had read them. He was perceived as disingenuous for saying he never received the e-mail requesting an original file while admitting he got the one that told him he was DQed; and for saying he had not visited the site since submitting when the SC had already said he had logged on during the 48 hrs period he had to submit his proof.
He dies dirty. |
whoooooo is that a crime to check a box for something that you havent read completely?
Have you tried to read through Microsoft´s Liecence agreements for example?....lol
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 02:00:28 AM · #17 |
This guy did more than make an innocent mistake on the date. He said he hasn't read the rules but he checked a box on the submission form affirming that he had read them. He was perceived as disingenuous for saying he never received the e-mail requesting an original file while admitting he got the one that told him he was DQed; and for saying he had not visited the site since submitting when the SC had already said he had logged on during the 48 hrs period he had to submit his proof.
He dies dirty. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:47:26 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Absolutely, I'm not saying do NOT dq his (or anyones) entry based on not knowing the rules. All I'm saying is don't keep pounding on the guy for a mistake that he has already admitted happened. And if he has suggested that other entries are from different dates also (outside the challenge date range), then thank him for being honest and DQ them if needed, but don't rub his nose in the dirt for being honest. |
So if I accidently steal your wallet, because I didn't realize it was against the law, I should be put in jail, but everyone should pity me for being misguided? Hmmmmm.... Liberal? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:39:11 AM · #19 |
Thanks ChrisW123~ |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:32:37 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
NEED to be validated ... |
Absolutely, I'm not saying do NOT dq his (or anyones) entry based on not knowing the rules. All I'm saying is don't keep pounding on the guy for a mistake that he has already admitted happened. And if he has suggested that other entries are from different dates also (outside the challenge date range), then thank him for being honest and DQ them if needed, but don't rub his nose in the dirt for being honest. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:30:17 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think everyone should lay off of the guy, he clearly didn't try to cheat on purpose since the date (2003) was on the picture itself (also a violation of the rules :). He's just "guilty" of not reading the rules, but such a strong reaction to his mistake is not warranted in my opinion. Give him a break. |
If the date was on his original entry (which to the best of my memory it wasn't) that would by itself be grounds for DQ under either rule set... |
I resized the photo from the original before upload. The photo in this thread is directly linked to my web gallery and that's why it has a date on it. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:23:11 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I think everyone should lay off of the guy, he clearly didn't try to cheat on purpose since the date (2003) was on the picture itself (also a violation of the rules :). He's just "guilty" of not reading the rules, but such a strong reaction to his mistake is not warranted in my opinion. Give him a break. |
If the date was on his original entry (which to the best of my memory it wasn't) that would by itself be grounds for DQ under either rule set... |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:19:56 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by terrentius:
Originally posted by robsmith:
I guess the fact that the file is from 2003 has nothing to do with it? |
Got it~~ That's a problem. |
I think everyone should lay off of the guy, he clearly didn't try to cheat on purpose since the date (2003) was on the picture itself (also a violation of the rules :). He's just "guilty" of not reading the rules, but such a strong reaction to his mistake is not warranted in my opinion. Give him a break. |
Well, I don't think he meant any harm, but as I read his message, it sounds like he felt it was ok to bend the rule. I don't think he should be suspended but his challenge entries (yes, the ones already done) NEED to be validated and DQ'd, since it appears he is suggesting they too are from different dates. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 01:04:39 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by terrentius:
Originally posted by robsmith:
I guess the fact that the file is from 2003 has nothing to do with it? |
Got it~~ That's a problem. |
I think everyone should lay off of the guy, he clearly didn't try to cheat on purpose since the date (2003) was on the picture itself (also a violation of the rules :). He's just "guilty" of not reading the rules, but such a strong reaction to his mistake is not warranted in my opinion. Give him a break.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2004 11:54:07 PM · #25 |
This rule is very serious. All of them are. We expect 100% compliance with the rules by all participants. This just happens to be the first time the violation has come to our attention.
One of the main things that separates DPChallenge from other contest sites is the date limitation. It levels the playing field by ensuring that newer photographers can compete against those with years of archived photos.
In fact, repeat violations of the date rule have resulted in suspensions. We expect that you will take this opportunity to read the rules, and comply with them going forward. Also, if you have any current entries in the challenge which, upon review, you feel violate the rules, now is a good time to call them to our attention (privately, of course).
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-04-20 23:57:02.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/28/2024 10:11:20 AM EDT.
