| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2015 04:26:24 PM · #201 |
I think legitimate points have been made by those against revealing the culprits and by those who think the victims should know who dealt them a low blow. It was pretty obvious from the start that the powers that be wouldn't change their opinion, as such I'm not sure this thread is of any use now.
The victims won't know why and who lowballed them, the culprits get a few week off then get to come back anonymously without a worry in the world except to lowball more skillfully in the future, great.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2015 04:41:53 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I think legitimate points have been made by those against revealing the culprits and by those who think the victims should know who dealt them a low blow. It was pretty obvious from the start that the powers that be wouldn't change their opinion, as such I'm not sure this thread is of any use now.
The victims won't know why and who lowballed them, the culprits get a few week off then get to come back anonymously without a worry in the world except to lowball more skillfully in the future, great. |
That's not strictly true. If everybody, even a good majority, had supported an outing, we'd have had to discuss that option pretty seriously. Robert has already said as much. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 04:45:01 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
how about we have a challenge where make our guess and also guess what they got suspended for? we could make it expert editing. |
We could make it a self portrait challenge with every person who enters suspended for violating forum rule #10. |
Slippy would have loved that. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 04:47:58 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I think legitimate points have been made by those against revealing the culprits and by those who think the victims should know who dealt them a low blow. It was pretty obvious from the start that the powers that be wouldn't change their opinion, as such I'm not sure this thread is of any use now.
The victims won't know why and who lowballed them, the culprits get a few week off then get to come back anonymously without a worry in the world except to lowball more skillfully in the future, great. |
It was of use in fact. I (and several others) said that we'd like to know more details about the situation, but didn't think releasing the identity of the persons involved was necessary.
And Bear did exactly that for us. Personally I think that means this thread was purposeful, and I am pleased to know the detailed reasons on what exactly happened, sans identities, revealing a (perhaps obvious) lesson in what exactly would constitute a violation of the TOS. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 05:58:21 PM · #205 |
| We need a TPL to help the community. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:04:58 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
I think legitimate points have been made by those against revealing the culprits and by those who think the victims should know who dealt them a low blow. It was pretty obvious from the start that the powers that be wouldn't change their opinion, as such I'm not sure this thread is of any use now.
The victims won't know why and who lowballed them, the culprits get a few week off then get to come back anonymously without a worry in the world except to lowball more skillfully in the future, great. |
It was of use in fact. I (and several others) said that we'd like to know more details about the situation, but didn't think releasing the identity of the persons involved was necessary.
And Bear did exactly that for us. Personally I think that means this thread was purposeful, and I am pleased to know the detailed reasons on what exactly happened, sans identities, revealing a (perhaps obvious) lesson in what exactly would constitute a violation of the TOS. |
But you KNOW the identities!! Or you as much as said so. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:10:24 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
I think legitimate points have been made by those against revealing the culprits and by those who think the victims should know who dealt them a low blow. It was pretty obvious from the start that the powers that be wouldn't change their opinion, as such I'm not sure this thread is of any use now.
The victims won't know why and who lowballed them, the culprits get a few week off then get to come back anonymously without a worry in the world except to lowball more skillfully in the future, great. |
It was of use in fact. I (and several others) said that we'd like to know more details about the situation, but didn't think releasing the identity of the persons involved was necessary.
And Bear did exactly that for us. Personally I think that means this thread was purposeful, and I am pleased to know the detailed reasons on what exactly happened, sans identities, revealing a (perhaps obvious) lesson in what exactly would constitute a violation of the TOS. |
But you KNOW the identities!! Or you as much as said so. |
He THINKS he does, anyway. He's one of those people that can sleuth out anything if he's motivated to ;-) |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:14:06 PM · #208 |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:21:22 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Where's Hoffa? |
The FBI cut a deal with Cory a couple years ago; they agreed not to prosecute him for his involvement in the money-laundering scam if he'd agree to let sleeping Hoffas lie. Don't ask me how I know this, because I can't reveal my sources. But it's all in the secret SC archives, I promise you that. In the big safe behind the huge Elvis-on-Black-Velvet on the East wall of the counting room where we tally and distribute the bribes we've received. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:31:56 PM · #210 |
I can neither confirm nor deny such wild rumors.
(In all seriousness, in order to avoid the appearance that I might somehow be too damned clever, the truth is that I was simply asked to act as a go-between by a friend who made a rather poor decision. So inherently I know the identity of two of the involved persons, and I have no reason to say a darn thing about the who - but trust me in that the person has expressed a total acceptance of the situation and SC's decision. I'm pretty certain this was, in fact, very much a one time thing, and there would be zero purpose in any disclosure beyond that.)
Message edited by author 2015-03-03 18:46:24. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:51:17 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I can neither confirm nor deny such wild rumors.
(In all seriousness, in order to avoid the appearance that I might somehow be too damned clever, the truth is that I was simply asked to act as a go-between by a friend who made a rather poor decision. So inherently I know the identity of two of the involved persons, and I have no reason to say a darn thing about the who - but trust me in that the person has expressed a total acceptance of the situation and SC's decision. I'm pretty certain this was, in fact, very much a one time thing, and there would be zero purpose in any disclosure beyond that.) |
A one time thing for an entire year? |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:52:58 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I can neither confirm nor deny such wild rumors.
(In all seriousness, in order to avoid the appearance that I might somehow be too damned clever, the truth is that I was simply asked to act as a go-between by a friend who made a rather poor decision. So inherently I know the identity of two of the involved persons, and I have no reason to say a darn thing about the who - but trust me in that the person has expressed a total acceptance of the situation and SC's decision. I'm pretty certain this was, in fact, very much a one time thing, and there would be zero purpose in any disclosure beyond that.) |
We get that. And I don't really care who it is, but the fact that some know and some don't is a problem. This long, exacerbated thread is a problem. The fact that the intended "victim" doesn't know who or why is a problem.
Plus I don't get why you would want to be the proponent for anonymity when you know exactly what's going on. |
|
|
|
03/03/2015 06:57:47 PM · #213 |
That said, I do commend SC on their handling of this issue (and all issues to come). At this point I agree with  vawendy who said earlier... Yup. Seems like everything has been said at this point. Maybe it's time to lock this down.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2015 07:00:24 PM · #214 |
Don't you people GET it? Real, tangible damage would be done, out there in the Real World, if we "exposed" one of these people here. It would be utterly irresponsible of us to do that.
The larger question, of whether in general TOS Violators should be "outed", has been asked and answered. There is clearly no groundswell to do so.
But under NO circumstances would we have outed, or WILL we out, this particular miscreant. Sometimes you just HAVE to trust us. We're pretty level-headed people.
Now this thread is DONE. Let's use our energies more constructively. |
|
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: 04/25/2024 10:19:57 AM EDT.
