DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Should members who violate the TOS be "outed"?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 214, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/28/2015 08:07:46 AM · #1
This subject has come up often enough that I'd like to see it discussed. Seriously, please, not flippantly.

From time to time SC has suspended members for violations of the TOS, sometimes for voting irregularities of one sort or another, sometimes for "bad behavior" in the forums. The latter category is pretty visible, of course, so there's usually no mystery appended to that. But it has not been our practice to publicly "out" members who have been suspended for voting irregularities. We believe that to do so would just create a firestorm of gossip, none of it productive, and would actively hinder the return of the suspended member to the site after their "sentence" has been served. We don't see what purpose would be served by publicly naming these members when they are suspended.

Nevertheless, there are clearly DPCers who feel otherwise.

We'd be interested in hearing from you folks both pro and con on this issue.
02/28/2015 08:37:44 AM · #2
Gossip is so much fun, though!

Seriously, if they are outright banned, that might be one thing. If they are temporarily suspended, people wont look at them the same again.
02/28/2015 08:37:51 AM · #3
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

We believe that to do so would just create a firestorm of gossip, none of it productive, and would actively hinder the return of the suspended member to the site after their "sentence" has been served. We don't see what purpose would be served by publicly naming these members when they are suspended.


That sounds about right to me. I'm not interested at all in knowing the identity of those who've been suspended and can't see what good it would do. But then, i'm not that bothered about people cheating either really. Not these days anyway - i have been annoyed in the past such as during the whole 47 Steps saga and that wasn't even technically/legally 'cheating'.
02/28/2015 08:42:11 AM · #4
I do like to know that it's happened and been dealt with, though. It's nice to know that these things are caught occasionally. Renews some faith in the site and how it works.
02/28/2015 08:45:36 AM · #5
I favour allowing the SC to use their judgement about whether or not any good purpose is served by naming miscreants. SC members are selected for their ability to be wise and impartial jurists more than for any other quality, presumably.

If a transgression involves a systematic fraud, like the Rikki case (was that his name?) then yes, disclosing the identity of all involved and kicking them out without further ado is appropriate. But if it's just a case of misguided buddy (positive) voting, or of some kind of dumb personal vendetta (negative) voting, SC ought to be free to privately say to the offender, "We're watching you, and now you can cool your jets for a couple of months while you consider your responsibilities to the DPC community before you can play with us again". After that, if bad behaviour continues, toss them out and name the names.

Let SC make the call. They're our moderators, so let moderation prevail until they think moderation has been reasonably exhausted.
02/28/2015 08:53:04 AM · #6
In real life, if you commit a small law offense, you usually have to pay a fine, but everything can stay confidential (for example, for a minor speeding offense). On the contrary, if the offense is a major one, there will be a trial, and the penalty can be much higher than just money. In that case, things go obviously public, by definition.

On DPC, the situation seems quite paradoxical currently: if one simply breaks the challenge rules (even if it wasn't on purpose), the disqualification is public, and the member gets one of those shiny pink lines in his profile, that can't be hidden whatsoever (I myself 'won' three of those). Here, the offense looks much more important, is about the TOS (not simply the challenge rules), yet those people are offered confidentiality. Doesn't seem very logical.
02/28/2015 09:05:19 AM · #7
Did you guys issue a warning or just drop the hammer?
02/28/2015 09:06:27 AM · #8
Originally posted by ubique:

I favour allowing the SC to use their judgement about whether or not any good purpose is served by naming miscreants. SC members are selected for their ability to be wise and impartial jurists more than for any other quality, presumably.

If a transgression involves a systematic fraud, like the Rikki case (was that his name?) then yes, disclosing the identity of all involved and kicking them out without further ado is appropriate. But if it's just a case of misguided buddy (positive) voting, or of some kind of dumb personal vendetta (negative) voting, SC ought to be free to privately say to the offender, "We're watching you, and now you can cool your jets for a couple of months while you consider your responsibilities to the DPC community before you can play with us again". After that, if bad behaviour continues, toss them out and name the names.

Let SC make the call. They're our moderators, so let moderation prevail until they think moderation has been reasonably exhausted.


Having said all that, it's not a licence for SC to be megalomaniacal about their role. There was a disgraceful case of one member (no names, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' posthumous) being accused of consistently inappropriately voting high the photos of another member (no names ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' pointandshoot),when those photos did not necessarily score high overall. The damning 'evidence' was apparently that the uniformly high votes were statistically improbable, and therefore suspicious. It had apparently not occurred to a particular SC member (no names - Dullard) that a particular photographer could so consistently produce photographs that while not universally acclaimed would nevertheless consistently strongly appeal to a voter of ... let's say refined ... artistic sensibility. That was a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees. Or maybe just wood-for-brains.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 10:59:04.
02/28/2015 09:09:59 AM · #9
I kind of agree gyaban. All offenses should be treated the same in terms of 'publicly outing' the offender. If you shame them for one thing, shame them for the other as well. OR don't shame them at all. As in, if they can't be treated the same, then don't publicly acknowledge any offense - including DQ's. Because ultimately, isn't every offense in some way a violation of the TOS?

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 09:13:04.
02/28/2015 09:10:49 AM · #10
Originally posted by gyaban:

In real life, if you commit a small law offense, you usually have to pay a fine, but everything can stay confidential (for example, for a minor speeding offense). On the contrary, if the offense is a major one, there will be a trial, and the penalty can be much higher than just money. In that case, things go obviously public, by definition.

On DPC, the situation seems quite paradoxical currently: if one simply breaks the challenge rules (even if it wasn't on purpose), the disqualification is public, and the member gets one of those shiny pink lines in his profile, that can't be hidden whatsoever (I myself 'won' three of those). Here, the offense looks much more important, is about the TOS (not simply the challenge rules), yet those people are offered confidentiality. Doesn't seem very logical.


I have to agree with this.

I inadvertently entered a basic once with an advanced edit and that info wasn't hidden from anyone but if I delibertly were to cheat and try to influence the results nobody is to know, that's not logical and not fair.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 09:11:42.
02/28/2015 09:22:33 AM · #11
But there's no potential "shame" involved in editing violations resulting in challenge DQs. And when members are suspended for too-frequent challenge DQs, we don't publish that information either... The major issue here, and nobody's addressed it yet, is "What's to be GAINED by exposing transgressors to public scrutiny?"

I've explained why we DON'T do it, it's a very practical (and humane) reason. What's the counterpoint to that? What's the PRACTICAL reason to expose these people?
02/28/2015 09:23:19 AM · #12
I think it's handled well as is.

For me a DQ is different. Most of those are accidental - the kind of thing any of us could do. And we all learn from many of these mistakes: pay attention to the rule set; keep your originals; don't handle your originals in certain ways; some editing tools and steps are illegal in minimal or advanced, often only if taken too far; etc. etc. So in the vast majority of the cases there is not only no "shame" but actually a general plus to disclosure. And if you are going to disclose the reasons for some DQ's, you need to do so for all - even if the reason is "photographer decided to try to slip an illegal editing step by us and got caught" (of course SC would never state such in this fashion, but the member would probably disclose it :) )

I don't need to know anything beyond the fact that this kind of voter abuse is sometimes caught and is then "punished". There's no gain in "shame and blame" as another site I belong to phrases it.

ETA: I was writing the above while ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' jagar and Bear were posting.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 09:24:12.
02/28/2015 09:26:15 AM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

..."What's to be GAINED by exposing transgressors to public scrutiny? ...


Nothing.
02/28/2015 09:26:58 AM · #14
It is good to review policies/procedures occasionally for the need to update or change, but I don't see how a consensus can be reached on this issue. Generally, it's better to make that kind of information public, but discretely public. Change the blue shirt to an orange one, perhaps.

[eta]
What is gained, in practical terms, is if SC is public & transparent, then they can be held accountable for their decisions. If their work is done in secret, then they can't.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 09:30:51.
02/28/2015 09:31:01 AM · #15
What's the practical reason to know who robbed the shop next door ? none I suppose, if I thought it was someone in my street though I'd probably want to know, would I look at them differently, probably but it wouldn't stop me being friends with them.
02/28/2015 09:32:08 AM · #16
Originally posted by pixelpig:

It is good to review policies/procedures occasionally for the need to update or change, but I don't see how a consensus can be reached on this issue. Generally, it's better to make that kind of information public, but discretely public. Change the blue shirt to an orange one, perhaps.

...


And make them pick up trash on the side challenges!
02/28/2015 10:07:23 AM · #17
If one knows their own reputation is at stake, they would perhaps think twice before cheating. If confidentiality is guaranteed, someone else could attempt to do the same in the future: after all, the only risk is a few challenges suspension, then everything resumes as if nothing happened... sounds a bit too easy. The gain of being transparent would help preventing such situation from happening again. Acts have consequences, be prepared to face them.
02/28/2015 10:10:28 AM · #18
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

It is good to review policies/procedures occasionally for the need to update or change, but I don't see how a consensus can be reached on this issue. Generally, it's better to make that kind of information public, but discretely public. Change the blue shirt to an orange one, perhaps.

...


And make them pick up trash on the side challenges!


It would be an interesting experiment if the punishment for TOS violations was to serve for a while as a watch dog on the alert for other violators.

Terrible idea. I take it back. That would serve to sharpen their violator-skills.

[eta]
I know, changing the color of their shirt is a silly idea. Nobody could see the change, as they are suspended. But I wonder, if the SC were to make the information public, then how would they do it? in practical terms.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 10:15:54.
02/28/2015 10:14:44 AM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But there's no potential "shame" involved in editing violations resulting in challenge DQs. And when members are suspended for too-frequent challenge DQs, we don't publish that information either... The major issue here, and nobody's addressed it yet, is "What's to be GAINED by exposing transgressors to public scrutiny?"

I've explained why we DON'T do it, it's a very practical (and humane) reason. What's the counterpoint to that? What's the PRACTICAL reason to expose these people?


I think more details on what happened might be welcome, as a lesson to potential future offenders.... I also think that revealing names would be inappropritate, as I always have. Seems I somehow always end up knowing, and I can't say it's ever helped me a bit. (On the other hand, I've never really felt it was something they needed shamed over either...)
02/28/2015 10:19:55 AM · #20
id love to see the cheats outed, can make a fairly educated guess who it was.

but it would be a self fulfilling phrophecy suspended and outed for tactical voting then if they had a style or location then ppl would target them with low voties because of their previous transgressions!!

02/28/2015 10:41:56 AM · #21
I'm still here, so put away your landscapes and stock photos.
02/28/2015 10:54:29 AM · #22
My opinion is, there is no reason to put "disturbing the peace," DUI's and such in the newspaper. It is gossip and serves no purpose.

If the rules and the proof and the violation is clear enough, let everyone know, and the scofflaw can try to plead his or her case-perhaps changing other peoples minds. But this comes down to the right of the accused to have privacy vs. the right of the public to know.

If the rules, violation, and actions of the accused require "voting majorities,"- in that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether the violation occurred and was really "substantial" enough for action, then the accused would want it out in the open, perhaps general member opinion could nullify the offense to a certain degree, and help to clarify rules in the future.

See what happens when you make art a contest that you try to measure with numbers? It is not sports.

02/28/2015 10:54:56 AM · #23
I have not been here long, but I am here long enough to know our SC rocks and I soley trust their judgement on all issues concerning DPC..

As it was said before and I think Gyaban hit things right on the nose..

DQ are totally different from TOS..

I am not interested in knowing whom was the offender of the TOS.

But what has happened, has been fair enough to the TOS offenders, if they come back after their suspension and start voting again, watch them, if they do it again, then there are lines for perma banning them from the site and there is clear reason not to allow them to participate.

It is pretty sad that adults have even thought about trying to cheat a system for something like this.

All I know is that I already have two DQ only because I was new at the time and didn't know the rules good enough, I try hard not get my third LOL!
Are we outted and poeple know, you bettcha at the end of the challenge, but for TOS?

I feel as long as the issue is dealt with and the poeple are caught, I trust Site Counsil enough

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 11:08:08.
02/28/2015 11:01:48 AM · #24
Originally posted by gyaban:

If one knows their own reputation is at stake, they would perhaps think twice before cheating. If confidentiality is guaranteed, someone else could attempt to do the same in the future: after all, the only risk is a few challenges suspension, then everything resumes as if nothing happened... sounds a bit too easy. The gain of being transparent would help preventing such situation from happening again. Acts have consequences, be prepared to face them.


this.

edit, for minor infractions no need to out the offender, just give the warning suspension, if it becomes an ongoing problem then make it public.

blatant violation of the TOS in voting i'm all for public shaming.

we all piss each other off at times here in the forums, but the one thing we all agree, is its sort of an unwritten rule, that we all put aside our differences in the contest. i and i'm sure others keep coming back because this place is honest, the community and the challenges have integrity. if public shaming enhances that integrity i have no problem with it.

Message edited by author 2015-02-28 11:09:41.
02/28/2015 11:09:10 AM · #25
I think I'm just a curios old sod, whatever job well done SC
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 10:48:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 10:48:18 AM EST.