| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2013 04:15:56 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
Originally posted by Melethia:
"The snapshots with no time, effort or skill involved."
Hey!! That's MY style.... :-)
I don't get a lot of 1s, but I sure get my fair share of 4s!! |
that's me too. well, the time part, and somewhat the effort.
after working 8 hours, commuting for 1-1.5, then cooking dinner, cleaning up and playing with a 2year old until bedtime, reading stories and singing to him, i have little time left to put on a big show photographically. i'm quite content with the scores i get as i understand they're somewhat a reflection of my lack of time, but also just that i have a quirky sense of what i like and want to enter. Anybody can make it to YANAP, but it takes true vision to make the low 4's without ending up on the far side of passable. ;) |
You can be trained in flashy technique, and expensive gear.
There is no course in snap-shottery. You either have the random, no skill, no effort snapshot down or you don't.
On the other hand, When it comes to no talent, no time, no effort snapshots, luck favors the prepared.
I try to have a camera set to the right settings next to me, and if I don't have one, I use that old wedding photographer trick of
saying "click" when I see a good shot. That way, without thinking, I can involuntarily snap the no time, no effort, no skill snapshot. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 11:13:53 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Im with art....we should retaliate with a gas attack or maybe a small nuclear device |
you actually see humor in this? sad. |
|
|
|
09/02/2013 11:36:41 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by oldbimmercoupe:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Im with art....we should retaliate with a gas attack or maybe a small nuclear device |
you actually see humor in this? sad. |
terrible. smh. only horrible people find the humor in nearly everything. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 12:25:38 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by oldbimmercoupe:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Im with art....we should retaliate with a gas attack or maybe a small nuclear device |
you actually see humor in this? sad. |
terrible. smh. only horrible people find the humor in nearly everything. |
where do I sign up?
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 01:20:44 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by oldbimmercoupe:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Im with art....we should retaliate with a gas attack or maybe a small nuclear device |
you actually see humor in this? sad. |
terrible. smh. only horrible people find the humor in nearly everything. |
where do I sign up? |
You're already a member. ...although you are a few months behind on your dues... |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 05:47:18 AM · #206 |
This thread is a laugh we all long needed.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 08:14:54 AM · #207 |
| Why protect cheaters? Make an example of them, name and shame and good bye, good riddance. The integrity and fair play of this site is at stake by a few bad apples. I don't believe reform works unless you are in Max Security and want out for fear of your life... or if you want your HIV negative status to remain so. What is the world's pre-occupation to reform people like this? You aren't their parents, there are rules and this is an Autocracy. Morals and fair play cannot be assimilated by admins. Even if you think you can there is a steady influx of new members who never read this thread and will try to cheat. Front page or welcome email: "We catch you cheating, you will be banned permanently without refund" That sends a clear enough message to anyone joining. Saves you a lot of time too. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 08:24:07 AM · #208 |
| Bet its being so jolly and cheerful that keeps you going. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 08:29:56 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Why protect cheaters? Make an example of them, name and shame and good bye, good riddance. The integrity and fair play of this site is at stake by a few bad apples. I don't believe reform works unless you are in Max Security and want out for fear of your life... or if you want your HIV negative status to remain so. What is the world's pre-occupation to reform people like this? You aren't their parents, there are rules and this is an Autocracy. Morals and fair play cannot be assimilated by admins. Even if you think you can there is a steady influx of new members who never read this thread and will try to cheat. Front page or welcome email: "We catch you cheating, you will be banned permanently without refund" That sends a clear enough message to anyone joining. Saves you a lot of time too. |
+1 I was thinking just that last night. Make sure that newcomers have to click on a linky whereby they HAVE to read the rules of site etiquette and yes, say outright and up front,if you're caught cheating, you're out. So what if it scares away a few noobs - that means the ones who have a little more respect for the rules will stay. Just think, what works better in the long run - the ounce of prevention or a pound of cure?
And yes in the long run it should save SC a lot of needless headaches. SC is staffed by volunteers, brave souls, and they have the daunting task of overseeing this site. Which is why it makes all the more sense to implement a few tough rules right at the gate, than try to set things right much later when the damage has already been done.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 12:36:55 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Why protect cheaters? Make an example of them, name and shame ... |
Are you volunteering to defray DPC's legal expenses in the event of a suit for libel or slander? Remember, it will be expensive even if "we win."
Perhaps there are good reasons for these matters to be handled by a select group and not opened up for a public vote ... your personal desire for vengence does not outweigh the needs of the site as a whole. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 12:49:46 PM · #211 |
Actually, it makes sense doing it this way. DPC is unique in that we actually try to do fair voting. So many sites are a "get your friends and family to vote for you!!" Even National Geographic is that type of thing. I'm sure they would rather not have people voting other pictures down, but they still want you to go out and get your friends to vote for you.
So yes -- you're supposed to read the rules and regulations. But how many people actually read all the fine print on every site for which the register? You should read the complete itunes and the complete world of warcraft terms of agreement -- they're quite interesting.
So I don't mind if a couple of people assume that this is like the myriads of other sites and learn by a suspension. If they're willing to learn and play by the rules, that's fine by me.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 12:57:42 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Make sure that newcomers have to click on a linky whereby they HAVE to read the rules of site etiquette and yes, say outright and up front,if you're caught cheating, you're out. So what if it scares away a few noobs - that means the ones who have a little more respect for the rules will stay. Just think, what works better in the long run - the ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? |
I've thought something like this would be a good idea, but haven't gotten around to structuring anything. Would you like to work on an outline for an "Introduction to DPC" page that people would be directed-to upon registration? A list of thngs they need to read there, and links to things they need to read elsewhere ... |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:03:59 PM · #213 |
Just curious, and this has probably been discussed, but how are we sure the person cheated and didn't just feel those were the votes they found to be appropriate? Are we killing the subjectivity of it if we say certain images deserve this kind of vote and if you don't vote accordingly you are obviously cheating?
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I'm missing something. Just wondering how it was determined to be cheating and not just bad taste.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:09:11 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Just curious, and this has probably been discussed, but how are we sure the person cheated and didn't just feel those were the votes they found to be appropriate? Are we killing the subjectivity of it if we say certain images deserve this kind of vote and if you don't vote accordingly you are obviously cheating?
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I'm missing something. Just wondering how it was determined to be cheating and not just bad taste. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by alohadave:
How are are you supposed to know what the 'best' and 'worst' entries are during voting? |
Here is a "hypothetical example" reasonably-based on a couple of actual recent challenges. In this case the photographer:
Entered, finished 10th ("Honorable" mention). Note that more than half the votes got a 1.
VOTE COUNT
1 38
2 2
3 6
4 0
5 10
6 3
7 3
8 8
9 0
10 0
Did Not Enter
VOTE COUNT
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 1
8 32
9 34
10 26Not only does the voting in the entered challenge attempt to alter the scoring to directly favor the photographer's own entry, the distorted voting pattern in the other (non-entered) challenge is a pretty clear attempt to maintain a "medium" overall voting average to mask the actual cheating. |
The same pattern of voting was followed for several challenges, with the vote distribution differing depending on whether or not the photographer had an entry in the challenge.
Additionally, in the entered challenges, most of the lowest votes were awarded to those photos which generally finished with higher averages, and the higher votes to those with the lower finishes ...
Message edited by author 2013-09-03 14:17:02. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:31:35 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chazoe:
Just curious, and this has probably been discussed, but how are we sure the person cheated and didn't just feel those were the votes they found to be appropriate? Are we killing the subjectivity of it if we say certain images deserve this kind of vote and if you don't vote accordingly you are obviously cheating?
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I'm missing something. Just wondering how it was determined to be cheating and not just bad taste. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by alohadave:
How are are you supposed to know what the 'best' and 'worst' entries are during voting? |
Here is a "hypothetical example" reasonably-based on a couple of actual recent challenges. In this case the photographer:
Entered, finished 10th ("Honorable" mention). Note that more than half the votes got a 1.
VOTE COUNT
1 38
2 2
3 6
4 0
5 10
6 3
7 3
8 8
9 0
10 0
Did Not Enter
VOTE COUNT
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 1
8 32
9 34
10 26Not only does the voting in the entered challenge attempt to alter the scoring to directly favor the photographer's own entry, the distorted voting pattern in the other (non-entered) challenge is a pretty clear attempt to maintain a "medium" overall voting average to mask the actual cheating. |
The same pattern of voting was followed for several challenges, with the vote distribution differing depending on whether or not the photographer had an entry in the challenge.
Additionally, in the entered challenges, most of the lowest votes were awarded to those photos which generally finished with higher averages, and the higher votes to those with the lower finishes ... |
Okay. That makes it pretty clear doesn't it?
So who was it? ;)
Figured I'd give it a shot. Lol |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:34:56 PM · #216 |
| Yeah, let's repeat this whole thread so you don't have to read it. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 02:54:08 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Yeah, let's repeat this whole thread so you don't have to read it. |
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2013 03:16:52 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Yeah, let's repeat this whole thread so you don't have to read it. |
To be fair, my original post was buried smack in the middle of the sequence of posts, and not one single person seemed to find it interesting enough to quote it or even comment on it since. I don't think additional snarkiness is really necessary at this point -- it does not contribute significantly to either an understanding or prevention of the problem to which this thread is devoted. I didn't find it loathesome to find and repeat a previous post, so I don't need you to get upset on my behalf ... |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 03:26:47 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Why protect cheaters? Make an example of them, name and shame ... |
Are you volunteering to defray DPC's legal expenses in the event of a suit for libel or slander? Remember, it will be expensive even if "we win."
Perhaps there are good reasons for these matters to be handled by a select group and not opened up for a public vote ... your personal desire for vengence does not outweigh the needs of the site as a whole. |
How ridiculous and interpretive a statement is that GeneralE? I do not seek vengeance nor did I ask it, only justice and fair play. There's a rather large difference between burning the offender at a stake or merely naming them. I sought adherence to the site's Voting Rules and Terms in which DPC already makes enough Legal noise (Section 8. DISCLAIMERS, EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS) about not being held liable (Law suit) or being made accountable for it's policies and decisions. (I understand the specific vote manipulator is banned, great! But there is a demographic here that wants them named and my understanding of the American System is that even a minority; if it so be, has a voice, no?)
Nor did I state that my needs outweigh the site (autocracy) as a whole. You seek conflict with me by assuming I sought some sort of medieval vengeance (whatever form it might be?), yet cheaters are treated with a slap on the wrist ban period, (supposed) anonymity and an opportunity to repent and return whence all is forgiven. In so doing you rile people who pay and play fair. The reciprocal of your legal assertion is also true. What if all DPC (your) paying clients have paid for a system that is has and continues to be manipulated, and they decide to take action because they feel they were defrauded by a false pretence of security with vote scrubbers and vote manipulation monitoring processes, wither automated or manual (Voting Rules: Section: "We Will")? Perhaps not legal action but by exodus? If the cheaters are under-age (perhaps due State or Federal US law or the prevailing law of the Commonwealth of Virginia (2006)) they may not be named (remember this system also takes my money from across the pond and yet I am still bound by your "laws" and site policy), if the offender is not a juvenile then since when are adults protected by anonymity; only in an Autocracy where the Site Owner has created a policy for the admins. Adults should be held accountable for their actions (in this case banned - as it appears to be). Note that despite your select group choosing to keep said user(s)anonymous "your" DPC system RIGHT NOW has NOT actually kept (at least one) offender anonymous and he was found with little effort (<60 seconds) after I actually tried to seek the offender out... your barking up the wrong tree mate. Make a clear statement, sort out the cheaters and ban them outright. I might have had a friendship with that person, had a rapport, PM's, conversation outside of DPC and would like to know if they are a fraud or not. This would also protect ME, yet I am of less importance than HE? Perhaps my request of name and shame was a knee jerk reaction, but I'd like to see such a policy because I believe it a greater deterrent than not (I've admin'ed gamers forums, photography groups, web sites for 10+ years), but I'd be just as satisfied that they are caught and that they be ejected, permanently banned and that the system is made more robust to prevent it in future. Not once have the sites, the owners or I ever been sued for banning a user for cheating, fraud or any site violations on these sites I've been involved with. We had levels of bans, based on the severity of the site infringement. Foul mouths and persistent disrespect, week to monthly bans. Cheating, hacks, site disruption; outright permanent bans. Those that returned with new accounts were quickly discovered, instantly banned and the site status quo restored.
I've cancelled subscriptions on other paid online systems that allow friend voting using social networking and those that allowed and/or failed to prevent cheaters from running riot/banned for a short period of time and allow to return.
Let's see some action and not another wishy washy drawn out OJ Simpson trial...
I accept that it may not be the "Select Groups" decision to name the party (despite the system code and pages proving the contrary) but your approach and response to me is way off mark. Disagree with me, no problem. Suggest that I sought vengeance? Libel and slander right back at you... Other posters made much stronger suggestions than I!
Take a page from your: "Signature: Question Authority! (Go ahead, ask me anything!)™"
Message edited by author 2013-09-03 15:38:54. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 03:39:40 PM · #220 |
| There is no legitimate reason to name offenders. Public humiliation is more likely to discourage a return in good faith than to encourage reform. Those who are caught breaking the rules are already sanctioned per site policy and either stop the behavior or face stiffer punishment or outright ban in the future. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 04:05:42 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Why protect cheaters? Make an example of them, name and shame ... |
Are you volunteering to defray DPC's legal expenses in the event of a suit for libel or slander? Remember, it will be expensive even if "we win."
Perhaps there are good reasons for these matters to be handled by a select group and not opened up for a public vote ... your personal desire for vengence does not outweigh the needs of the site as a whole. |
How ridiculous and interpretive a statement is that GeneralE? I do not seek vengeance nor did I ask it, only justice and fair play. |
We have already administered justice within the site's rules and guidelines. I'm sorry you don't agree with the verdict/penalty, but structure of the site does not include participation by the membership at large in decisions of this nature.
BTW: you mention long-standing American traditions, one of which is that "personnel matters" are usually held in confidence from peers and the public. DPC is (fortunately!) not a part of the governement structure, and is not required to be a completely open participatory democracy. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 05:09:35 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Make sure that newcomers have to click on a linky whereby they HAVE to read the rules of site etiquette and yes, say outright and up front,if you're caught cheating, you're out. So what if it scares away a few noobs - that means the ones who have a little more respect for the rules will stay. Just think, what works better in the long run - the ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? |
I've thought something like this would be a good idea, but haven't gotten around to structuring anything. Would you like to work on an outline for an "Introduction to DPC" page that people would be directed-to upon registration? A list of thngs they need to read there, and links to things they need to read elsewhere ... |
If I can scrape together the spare time, I'll try to hack something together. Frankly I wish that there had been such a page in place all this time, and I've been here over 7 years now.
I learned of DPC via Unca Raymee, joined, shot my first entry and entered it all on my very first day. No clue as to site etiquette, just shot for challenges and entered, Then spent the next few months learning how the place actually worked. Spent half a year or so here before even posting in forums, getting PS Elements, etc etc... |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 05:21:17 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
I learned of DPC via Unca Raymee, joined, shot my first entry and entered it all on my very first day. No clue as to site etiquette, just shot for challenges and entered, Then spent the next few months learning how the place actually worked. |
I did the same thing, except I only had a link to the site (no "inside contact") and it was "mere weeks" before I was drafted into the newly-formed "Site Council" ....
ETA: If you can just make a list of things you "wish I'd known" when you signed up you can send it to me via PM -- it needn't be a huge project (for you) at this point.
Message edited by author 2013-09-03 17:23:28. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 05:38:19 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
. . . my original post was buried smack in the middle of the sequence of posts, and not one single person seemed to find it interesting enough to quote it or even comment on it since. . . . |
I read and appreciated it, and I am, sure I am not alone. Thank you. |
|
|
|
09/03/2013 06:42:57 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I did the same thing, except I only had a link to the site (no "inside contact") and it was "mere weeks" before I was drafted into the newly-formed "Site Council" .... |
I, on the other hand, came along 2 years after you, in 2004, and have been trying to get on the danged site council ever since, but nobody's drafted ME :-( |
|
