| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2015 09:05:06 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
What most people seem to forget is that this is not a democracy.
We did not elect langdon. We did not elect the sc.
We agreed to the rules of the site.
It is their right to determine punishment as they see fit.
Whether or not I'm in agreement with the terms really doesn't matter. It's not my site.
HOWEVER:
1. I see this site council as a particularly fair, Openminded group.
2. I have NOT seen them playing favorites. And I don't worry that they will.
3. I think they look carefully at situations and do their best to come up with something that makes sense.
It was kind of them to let us have some input on this. It went a long time. People got to speak their mind.
When they asked us to let it go, why can we not respect that? We did not sign up for a Democratic site. It was never listed as one and never falsely advertised as one.
I recommend that we let the extremely dead horse rest in peace and go back to taking photos.
Please |
+1.
Whether or not I agree with the decisions about any of it, I admit that I was pleased that other thread got dismissed. Nothing more to be said.
Please let it go.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 09:10:05 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jagar:
There was a discussion going on about how to deal with TOS violations, the powers that be who started that thread have now made it disappear.
One of the SC posted this: "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."
... |
Perhaps if this wasn't said right before the thread was locked, then maybe things would have settled a bit. Is it a hyperbolic hypothetical statement? Does the offender have a delicate personality? It just opens more questions, that's all. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 09:13:17 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Bear didn't explain anything he gave us a hypothetical.
Paul on the other hand said this.
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
|
Ah, quite right. That was the post I had in mind. Although I had conflated it with another post by Bear talking about the why. Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 09:16:06. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 09:29:50 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
Doesn't at all to me. The state of mind behind those is radically different: a strong but punctual reaction, VS a cold and calculated action maintained over time. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 09:35:25 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by nygold:
Bear didn't explain anything he gave us a hypothetical.
Paul on the other hand said this.
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
|
Ah, quite right. That was the post I had in mind. Although I had conflated it with another post by Bear talking about the why. Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
that's like saying there is no difference between 1st and third degree murder.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 09:43:07. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 09:38:19 AM · #31 |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 10:12:09 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
What most people seem to forget is that this is not a democracy.
|
If that is the case then why ask everyone how they felt it should be handled?
Personally I couldn't care less which way this goes but I have to admit, for SC to ask everyone how it should be handled then practically scold the people who say violators should be outed does kinda seem like just stirring the pot. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 10:49:25 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by nygold:
Bear didn't explain anything he gave us a hypothetical.
Paul on the other hand said this.
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
|
Ah, quite right. That was the post I had in mind. Although I had conflated it with another post by Bear talking about the why. Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
that's like saying there is no difference between 1st and third degree murder. |
ROFL. Ya'll think maybe you're taking this a bit too seriously? Equating a low vote with murder seems a tad hyperbolic to me.
And to be clear, let's just go ahead and say it is similar to the difference between 1st and second degree murder (many states don't even recognize third degree homicides)...
For New Mexico?
Second Degree Murder 15-20 years
First Degree Murder with no special circumstances Minimum of 30 years
Hmm. let me see, yes, yes, this seems to be about right, considering case 1 got 3 months, and case 2 got 2 months.
New York has tough but fair homicide laws right?
Second Degree Murder 15-25 years to Life
First Degree Murder 20-25 years to life, Life without Parole
Hmm.. Yeah, that's even less than the difference here isn't it?
...
But, by all means, have a look for yourself, even your hyperbole is pretty much supporting the SC's conclusion here. Well done. :-P
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 11:12:44 AM · #34 |
| Geez, Jagar, let it go man. You have absolutely no idea whether the person in question was popular or a random newbie, nor whether the victim was aware of the offense. You don't need to know. It doesn't affect you in the slightest, and isn't any of your business. The other thread was locked because the discussion had run its course and had devolved into conspiracy theories and suggestions to identify the culprit. Some of the claims being made are just mind-bogglingly stupid. If we were trying to hide the issue, then we would have announced it at all. If we censored opinions or made people disappear for disagreeing, then you wouldn't still be posting. If we weren't willing to at least consider arguments for public shaming of private offenses, we wouldn't have asked. In the end, it only served to demonstrate how quickly members jump to unfounded conclusions and make irrational accusations of malice... exactly why we DON'T put offenders on public display! |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 11:47:28 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Geez, Jagar, let it go man. You have absolutely no idea whether the person in question was popular or a random newbie, nor whether the victim was aware of the offense. You don't need to know. It doesn't affect you in the slightest, and isn't any of your business. The other thread was locked because the discussion had run its course and had devolved into conspiracy theories and suggestions to identify the culprit. Some of the claims being made are just mind-bogglingly stupid. If we were trying to hide the issue, then we would have announced it at all. If we censored opinions or made people disappear for disagreeing, then you wouldn't still be posting. If we weren't willing to at least consider arguments for public shaming of private offenses, we wouldn't have asked. In the end, it only served to demonstrate how quickly members jump to unfounded conclusions and make irrational accusations of malice... exactly why we DON'T put offenders on public display! |
"It isn't any of my business" as a paying member I find that remark utterly outrageous and I know I'm not the only one.
"It doesn't affect you in the slightest" somebody cheated and apparently lowballed all of us, hell who knows maybe I'm the main victim, I wouldn't know if I was, how can you possibly say it doesn't affect me, again outrageous, of course it affects all of us.
Nobody would jump to conclusions if we hadn't been dripped bits of info, what does this say to a normal functioning person: "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."
What we aren't supposed to take away conclusions from statements like that? |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 11:53:25 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Geez, Jagar, let it go man. You have absolutely no idea whether the person in question was popular or a random newbie, nor whether the victim was aware of the offense. You don't need to know. It doesn't affect you in the slightest, and isn't any of your business. The other thread was locked because the discussion had run its course and had devolved into conspiracy theories and suggestions to identify the culprit. Some of the claims being made are just mind-bogglingly stupid. If we were trying to hide the issue, then we would have announced it at all. If we censored opinions or made people disappear for disagreeing, then you wouldn't still be posting. If we weren't willing to at least consider arguments for public shaming of private offenses, we wouldn't have asked. In the end, it only served to demonstrate how quickly members jump to unfounded conclusions and make irrational accusations of malice... exactly why we DON'T put offenders on public display! |
"It isn't any of my business" as a paying member I find that remark utterly outrageous and I know I'm not the only one.
"It doesn't affect you in the slightest" somebody cheated and apparently lowballed all of us, hell who knows maybe I'm the main victim, I wouldn't know if I was, how can you possibly say it doesn't affect me, again outrageous, of course it affects all of us.
Nobody would jump to conclusions if we hadn't been dripped bits of info, what does this say to a normal functioning person: "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."
What we aren't supposed to take away conclusions from statements like that? |
Sigh. I think you should take away the demonstrable fact that one low vote makes almost no difference, especially when it was done equally to everyone. I think that you should also be wise enough to see that the other case involved two people who are not you, and therefore it shouldn't matter to you directly, outside of a general desire to know every detail.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 11:56:43. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 11:58:43 AM · #37 |
Just to re-address the motivation behind posting that thread: to determine if the current method of dealing with TOS violations is the best for the site. We're just people, we're open to change, and to new ways of doing things, if they contribute to the site in a positive way. Controversial changes such as this one, require a very clear majority to have us begin the enactment process. This was a poll, not a vote.
Based on the response on that thread, while there is great vocal opposition, it is quite clearly the minority. And SC feels that the case was not made for change.
Regarding the OP, as Shannon has said (and as I posited on the thread), these accusations of favoritism are completely unfounded. You may start 1,000 threads on this issue if you'd like, John. You have the right to do so. But based solely on your passion, the current method of dealing with these violations, stands. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 12:15:02 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by jagar:
...who knows maybe I'm the main victim, I wouldn't know if I was, how can you possibly say it doesn't affect me. |
Because I actually know the details while you, admittedly, do not.
Originally posted by jagar:
What we aren't supposed to take away conclusions from statements like that? |
That people named in public would face exactly the overblown hysterics you're demonstrating, deserved or not. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 12:31:11 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jagar:
...who knows maybe I'm the main victim, I wouldn't know if I was, how can you possibly say it doesn't affect me. |
Because I actually know the details while you, admittedly, do not.
Originally posted by jagar:
What we aren't supposed to take away conclusions from statements like that? |
That people named in public would face exactly the overblown hysterics you're demonstrating, deserved or not. |
What overblown hysterics, this is a discussion and one that SC asked to have, the arguments are there, by using the word hysterical, by locking a thread, who is being hysterical?
Of course you know the details and I dont, that is what this is about. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 12:36:43 PM · #40 |
| Let it be known that whoever cheated here would immediately get a total and unequivocal pardon from me and I'm sure that DPC as a whole would do the same, everybody screws up from time to time, the fact that SC doesn't think we could forgive and forget is actually quite sad, talk about pedestals. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 12:46:48 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by jagar:
What overblown hysterics ... |
Read the last few posts of the other thread ...
Originally posted by jagar:
Of course you know the details and I dont, that is what this is about. |
That's why we have a Site Council and not a total collective structure. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 12:49:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Let it be known that whoever cheated here would immediately get a total and unequivocal pardon from me and I'm sure that DPC as a whole would do the same, everybody screws up from time to time, the fact that SC doesn't think we could forgive and forget is actually quite sad, talk about pedestals. |
I would like to think you're correct and that everyone here is grown up enough to forgive and forget, but I've been reading DPC forums for quite some time and have reason to suspect that there could be harm in opening up this can of worms. Not everyone here is as accepting as you are. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:06:53 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jagar:
What overblown hysterics ... |
Read the last few posts of the other thread ...
|
that was intentional. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:11:55 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by nygold:
Bear didn't explain anything he gave us a hypothetical.
Paul on the other hand said this.
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
|
Ah, quite right. That was the post I had in mind. Although I had conflated it with another post by Bear talking about the why. Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
that's like saying there is no difference between 1st and third degree murder. |
ROFL. Ya'll think maybe you're taking this a bit too seriously? Equating a low vote with murder seems a tad hyperbolic to me.
And to be clear, let's just go ahead and say it is similar to the difference between 1st and second degree murder (many states don't even recognize third degree homicides)...
For New Mexico?
Second Degree Murder 15-20 years
First Degree Murder with no special circumstances Minimum of 30 years
Hmm. let me see, yes, yes, this seems to be about right, considering case 1 got 3 months, and case 2 got 2 months.
New York has tough but fair homicide laws right?
Second Degree Murder 15-25 years to Life
First Degree Murder 20-25 years to life, Life without Parole
Hmm.. Yeah, that's even less than the difference here isn't it?
...
But, by all means, have a look for yourself, even your hyperbole is pretty much supporting the SC's conclusion here. Well done. :-P |
the difference in that one shows conspiracy and the other is just a lapse in judgment. just becuase percentage wise they are different, they aren't in one punishment they attempt to ban you for life from interacting with society the other they just put you away for a long time.
Message edited by author 2015-03-04 13:14:18. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:13:24 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Sigh. I think you should take away the demonstrable fact that one low vote makes almost no difference, especially when it was done equally to everyone. I think that you should also be wise enough to see that the other case involved two people who are not you, and therefore it shouldn't matter to you directly, outside of a general desire to know every detail. |
you know the identities, or so you say. I wonder if you'd be taking a different stand if you didn't. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:19:11 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by jagar:
Let it be known that whoever cheated here would immediately get a total and unequivocal pardon from me and I'm sure that DPC as a whole would do the same, everybody screws up from time to time, the fact that SC doesn't think we could forgive and forget is actually quite sad, talk about pedestals. |
I would like to think you're correct and that everyone here is grown up enough to forgive and forget, but I've been reading DPC forums for quite some time and have reason to suspect that there could be harm in opening up this can of worms. Not everyone here is as accepting as you are. |
I'm not sure I'd be as forgiving. I was planning on sending rose my 20D in the last incarnation as "limerick". I'm not as quick to forgive and forget anymore. I wish I was a better person. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:26:01 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by jagar:
Let it be known that whoever cheated here would immediately get a total and unequivocal pardon from me and I'm sure that DPC as a whole would do the same, everybody screws up from time to time, the fact that SC doesn't think we could forgive and forget is actually quite sad, talk about pedestals. |
I would like to think you're correct and that everyone here is grown up enough to forgive and forget, but I've been reading DPC forums for quite some time and have reason to suspect that there could be harm in opening up this can of worms. Not everyone here is as accepting as you are. |
I actually think that hiding truths, not being open about what happened to the paying members is more detrimental than simply stating the facts, this is a community and this kind of totalitarian decision may seem the smoothest way to go but in the long wrong it won't pay.
Openness has to be the way forth.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:38:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Cory:
Essentially the two were similar in impact, one challenge, many crappy votes, vs many challenges, one crappy vote. Seems fair to me. |
Doesn't at all to me. The state of mind behind those is radically different: a strong but punctual reaction, VS a cold and calculated action maintained over time. |
I agree with Gyaban here, one is premeditated the other is impulsive.
Huge difference.
Message edited by author 2015-03-09 14:32:12. |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:38:48 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
03/04/2015 01:43:48 PM · #50 |
Yes we will overcome but from what?
I think we're over the people getting suspended, it's the poor way the SC handled
the question and answer thread that we have to overcome. |
|
