| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2004 12:24:58 AM · #226 |
If all whiners have not seen...24 hour challenge has started.
My turn....I have to sleep all day and work, how can I participate? This started at 10pm my time...wah, wah, wah! (kidding)
Are you getting your money worth now? or are you still excluded? |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 02:45:02 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
... I think Gordon asks the best questions, what is the reason for creating Master's challenges? Until we know what the goal is, we have no way to debate whether the actions are appropriate. |
The reason for the "Master's Challenge" was made quite clear in a very similar thread during the first one...
Originally posted by langdon:
... the idea was to just get a challenge full of awesome shots and make it really fun to vote on. ... |
The rest are just justifications made after the fact to try and calm the easily anticibpated outrage.
***
There is a very simple reason I was against the first and am against this one. It is elitist. It is elitists for the basic reason an arbitrary criteria was chosen after those who match it had already done so. Sure there may have been a chance for a few of us lesser being to scurry under the fence while the shouting was going on at the gate, but that doesn't change the elitism that preceded the uproar.
***
Some keep comparing this to the great events in other forms of competition, but it isn't for the same reason as stated above. Other competitions (nascar, world cup, master's something, Olympics, etc.) all have one thing in common. They are announced well before hand, and the qualification for them starts when they are announced.
***
This was all brought up during the previous debacle, along with several suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals of the "Master's Challenge" (and many of the justifications) while avoiding the elitism of its current form. But the response to them was to wait until they dropped off the front page and were 'forgotten', and then wonder in amazement at the 'new' outcry when it comes up again.
David
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 07:50:28 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by traser:
Me personally, I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even have time to enter most of these challenges anyway. But I can understand that it IS unfair that Master's pay the same fee and can enter a greater variety of challenges. This is a way to resolve this disparity. As for winners you have two winners. The best one might not even be in the Master's challenge, that's presumptuous. There are other capable ppl besides those who have won 3 ribbons and those that have won 3 might enter the general contest anyway. |
So why cast doubt on the result and segregate it - it doesn't make much sense is all. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 07:54:36 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Some keep comparing this to the great events in other forms of competition, but it isn't for the same reason as stated above. Other competitions (nascar, world cup, master's something, Olympics, etc.) all have one thing in common. They are announced well before hand, and the qualification for them starts when they are announced.
|
Why is this relevant to the discussion ? Would you somehow have tried harder to win if you knew there was something for doing it ?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:00:47 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The original proposal for the Masters Challenge set the number of ribbons at three. The first Masters Challenge was in fact introduced with three ribbons and then Langdon dropped it to two -- after discussion, we decided that the original three was best, but we didn't want to reverse it again on the same challenge. We decided to complete that challenge with two ribbons as the requirement, and set it back to three going forward. |
Thanks, Terry. I think I was asleep when all of the hoopdy-doo surrounding the first Master's Challenge came about. I appreciate the explanation.
But, FWIW, I think that 2-ribbon winners should be able to get in...just to get more entries. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:00:49 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
If all whiners have not seen...24 hour challenge has started.
My turn....I have to sleep all day and work, how can I participate? This started at 10pm my time...wah, wah, wah! (kidding)
Are you getting your money worth now? or are you still excluded? |
If you're unsure how to properly debate, why not just exclude yourself? Calling those with opposing opinions 'whiners' does nothing to further your position...
Both Spazmo and yourself seem to have only this tactic at your disposal...do you have any valid points to contribute?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:02:41 AM · #232 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by KaDi:
... I think Gordon asks the best questions, what is the reason for creating Master's challenges? Until we know what the goal is, we have no way to debate whether the actions are appropriate. |
The reason for the "Master's Challenge" was made quite clear in a very similar thread during the first one...
Originally posted by langdon:
... the idea was to just get a challenge full of awesome shots and make it really fun to vote on. ... |
The rest are just justifications made after the fact to try and calm the easily anticibpated outrage.
***
There is a very simple reason I was against the first and am against this one. It is elitist. It is elitists for the basic reason an arbitrary criteria was chosen after those who match it had already done so. Sure there may have been a chance for a few of us lesser being to scurry under the fence while the shouting was going on at the gate, but that doesn't change the elitism that preceded the uproar.
***
Some keep comparing this to the great events in other forms of competition, but it isn't for the same reason as stated above. Other competitions (nascar, world cup, master's something, Olympics, etc.) all have one thing in common. They are announced well before hand, and the qualification for them starts when they are announced.
***
This was all brought up during the previous debacle, along with several suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals of the "Master's Challenge" (and many of the justifications) while avoiding the elitism of its current form. But the response to them was to wait until they dropped off the front page and were 'forgotten', and then wonder in amazement at the 'new' outcry when it comes up again.
David |
Very well said.
I would like to see a response to this. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:02:45 AM · #233 |
| I would have thought that the argument that I want to compete against ALL the excellent photographers here is worth bearing in mind? No-one has really picked up on this one. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:13:00 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I would have thought that the argument that I want to compete against ALL the excellent photographers here is worth bearing in mind? No-one has really picked up on this one. |
You still do, twice a week, just like always. In fact 3 times this week.
No-one that is complaining seems to really pick up on this one either. If the masters challenge were ran and no-one but masters were informed about it, would things have changed ? In other words, is it only because you know there is a challenge that you can't enter, in addition to the ones you paid to enter, that it causes these problems ? |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:14:38 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I would have thought that the argument that I want to compete against ALL the excellent photographers here is worth bearing in mind? No-one has really picked up on this one. |
But nobody is stopping you from not entering are they? If you want to compete against everyone then enter the open challenge, there is 1 a week.
I may also do better if you don't enter :D
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 08:14:54. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:22:46 AM · #236 |
No diea who i am quoting but here are some answeres;
There is a very simple reason I was against the first and am against this one. It is elitist. It is elitists for the basic reason an arbitrary criteria was chosen after those who match it had already done so. Sure there may have been a chance for a few of us lesser being to scurry under the fence while the shouting was going on at the gate, but that doesn't change the elitism that preceded the uproar.
Yes it is elitist, the same elitist way that able bodied people can't enter the handicap marathon.
Can't see a problem with that myself, but each to their own.
Some keep comparing this to the great events in other forms of competition, but it isn't for the same reason as stated above. Other competitions (nascar, world cup, master's something, Olympics, etc.) all have one thing in common. They are announced well before hand, and the qualification for them starts when they are announced.
Well just how much pre-warning do you want? Years? Months? the masters and it's format was announced a few months ago. I guess you want pre-warning of 24 hour speed challenges as well?
This was all brought up during the previous debacle, along with several suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals of the "Master's Challenge" (and many of the justifications) while avoiding the elitism of its current form. But the response to them was to wait until they dropped off the front page and were 'forgotten', and then wonder in amazement at the 'new' outcry when it comes up again.
Eh?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:34:06 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I would have thought that the argument that I want to compete against ALL the excellent photographers here is worth bearing in mind? No-one has really picked up on this one. |
But nobody is stopping you from not entering are they? If you want to compete against everyone then enter the open challenge, there is 1 a week.
I may also do better if you don't enter :D |
Didn't you find your 2nd place win in the masters' challenge slightly cheapened by the narrowing of competitors? Maybe a <2ribbons member could have beaten our scores! I'll enter if I'm able because it's there, but I'd rather achieve a ribbon by beating all the competition, not a small range of it. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:34:17 AM · #238 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
There is a very simple reason I was against the first and am against this one. It is elitist. It is elitists for the basic reason an arbitrary criteria was chosen after those who match it had already done so. Sure there may have been a chance for a few of us lesser being to scurry under the fence while the shouting was going on at the gate, but that doesn't change the elitism that preceded the uproar.
|
I'm not sure I follow this argument. Do you not have the same chances of earning a ribbon as everyone else? Does being a "master" somehow convey an extra 2 points into a person's final score? I fail to see how this is "elitism" in any sense of the word. I see it as an earned privilege, one that you have just as much right of earning as I do.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Some keep comparing this to the great events in other forms of competition, but it isn't for the same reason as stated above. Other competitions (nascar, world cup, master's something, Olympics, etc.) all have one thing in common. They are announced well before hand, and the qualification for them starts when they are announced.
|
So how would the end result have been different if this type of challenge had been run from the very start of the site? The same people would still be classifed as "Masters". The same people would show the same consistent vision/style/grasp of the voters as they always have.
Originally posted by Britannica:
This was all brought up during the previous debacle, along with several suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals of the "Master's Challenge" (and many of the justifications) while avoiding the elitism of its current form. But the response to them was to wait until they dropped off the front page and were 'forgotten', and then wonder in amazement at the 'new' outcry when it comes up again.
|
That's probably because the argument has been dismissed as the rantings of a few, yet those same few keep bringing it up over and over again.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 08:38:24. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 08:38:42 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Didn't you find your 2nd place win in the masters' challenge slightly cheapened by the narrowing of competitors? Maybe a <2ribbons member could have beaten our scores! I'll enter if I'm able because it's there, but I'd rather achieve a ribbon by beating all the competition, not a small range of it. |
I'm actually quite surprised that not more Masters feel this way...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 09:27:28 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I would have thought that the argument that I want to compete against ALL the excellent photographers here is worth bearing in mind? No-one has really picked up on this one. |
But nobody is stopping you from not entering are they? If you want to compete against everyone then enter the open challenge, there is 1 a week.
I may also do better if you don't enter :D |
Didn't you find your 2nd place win in the masters' challenge slightly cheapened by the narrowing of competitors? Maybe a <2ribbons member could have beaten our scores! I'll enter if I'm able because it's there, but I'd rather achieve a ribbon by beating all the competition, not a small range of it. |
Not at all. I think the only difference that the Masters showed was lack of awful images. That isn't to say non ribbon winners couldn't have won - they would have an equal chance - even the most awful of photographers has an equal chance, it's just one little photo.
But feeling cheapened? Not at all. If that is your logic then you could not be satisfied with winning a 400 entry challenge as the competition is still short of it's maximum potential.
To be brutally honest, doesn't every ribbon feel cheap? I know it does to me - I wince at some of the ribbon wining photographs on this site, some of them I feel are truly awful, so I am hardly going to take great pride every time I win a ribbon as half the time i disagree with teh voters opinions.
It's nice, it gives a little Kudos, but that is exclusive to this site, which in terms of the world is frankly quite small. And in terms of self satisfication, is frankly near zero.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:12:16 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
When trying to decide whether or not these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a good idea or not, you should ask yourself, “Are these challenges doing anything to bring us all closer together as a community, or are they dividing us and alienating some of the members?”
I think it is quite obvious that these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a bad idea. The fact that the subject has generated so much debate, and that some members are complaining about it, to the point of leaving, makes it obvious. Whether you personally think it was a good idea or not is immaterial. The facts are that it has caused debate, is dividing us, and is alienating members. |
I noticed that nobody has even tried to refute the point that I made earlier in this thread. (see quote above)
Anyone care to try? No?
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:13:04 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
How have you determined this? |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:14:24 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by micknewton:
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
How have you determined this? |
The answer to that is in my original post.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:16:51 AM · #244 |
| Why don't we all just grow up and stop complaining? Sorry, I know this isn't the most diplimatic way of putting it... I don't fit into the masters challenge either, but I DON'T CARE! I'm not there yet - maybe I will be one day. Stop complaining and get to work so that maybe someday you will get there too! Nothing has been taken away from us - we can still participate every bit as much as before... |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:18:19 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
[quote=micknewton] When trying to decide whether or not these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a good idea or not, you should ask yourself, “Are these challenges doing anything to bring us all closer together as a community, or are they dividing us and alienating some of the members?”
I think it is quite obvious that these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a bad idea. The fact that the subject has generated so much debate, and that some members are complaining about it, to the point of leaving, makes it obvious. Whether you personally think it was a good idea or not is immaterial. The facts are that it has caused debate, is dividing us, and is alienating members. |
Name something on this site that hasn't caused debate, divided people or caused some people to feel alienated. I don't think there has been one single change that hasn't brought about some sort of complaining and threats to leave. |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:18:21 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by micknewton:
When trying to decide whether or not these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a good idea or not, you should ask yourself, “Are these challenges doing anything to bring us all closer together as a community, or are they dividing us and alienating some of the members?”
I think it is quite obvious that these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a bad idea. The fact that the subject has generated so much debate, and that some members are complaining about it, to the point of leaving, makes it obvious. Whether you personally think it was a good idea or not is immaterial. The facts are that it has caused debate, is dividing us, and is alienating members. |
I noticed that nobody has even tried to refute the point that I made earlier in this thread. (see quote above)
Anyone care to try? No?
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
If you think something that causes debate is a bad thing - I would hate to see your political stance.
Anyone care to try? No?
Yes
:D
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:19:21 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
When trying to decide whether or not these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a good idea or not, you should ask yourself, “Are these challenges doing anything to bring us all closer together as a community, or are they dividing us and alienating some of the members?”
I think it is quite obvious that these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a bad idea. The fact that the subject has generated so much debate, and that some members are complaining about it, to the point of leaving, makes it obvious. Whether you personally think it was a good idea or not is immaterial. The facts are that it has caused debate, is dividing us, and is alienating members. |
While you put these forward as facts, it isn't actually as self evident as you'd like to paint it. Additionally, you don't seem to have considered any positive aspects of members challenges that may benefit all site participants. Also, to your points that are the negatives or what you feel are negatives: Any change that has happened has generated debate and complaints. This isn't new. People also threaten to leave over things. This also isn't new or unique to this change.
Members vs. open challenges also caused similar debates. Do you think those are a bad idea ? In short, I think nobody has paid much attention to your point because it is just business as usual, rather than something significant, as you feel it is.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 11:20:57.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:21:55 AM · #248 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
Because it isn't obvious, or evident. Using these words doesn't make them true.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:27:06 AM · #249 |
Originally posted by prozac:
Why don't we all just grow up and stop complaining? |
hehe...aahhhh, what a simple solution! Grow up. Stop complaining. Don't voice your opinion.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 11:37:26 AM · #250 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
When trying to decide whether or not these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a good idea or not, you should ask yourself, “Are these challenges doing anything to bring us all closer together as a community, or are they dividing us and alienating some of the members?” |
Change is painful for some and welcomed by others. Personally, I look forward to seeing how the "best" photographers on DPC interpret this challenge and I think they HAVE earned the right to showcase their talent in this way.
Every member has had the same opportunity to compete in Members and Open challenges as everyone else has. Why begrudge those who are given an opportunity based on their achievements that you and I are not?
Originally posted by micknewton:
I think it is quite obvious that these ‘Masters Only’ challenges were a bad idea. The fact that the subject has generated so much debate, and that some members are complaining about it, to the point of leaving, makes it obvious. Whether you personally think it was a good idea or not is immaterial. The facts are that it has caused debate, is dividing us, and is alienating members. |
Is debate bad? Should all DPC'ers have the same mindset? I would be much more disturbed if there was no debate, no difference of opinion and we all just went along with the groupthink. I do find it somewhat amusing that those who are whining about this feel the need to use that ultimatum as a tool to somehow gain sympathy for their cause. If they stay or leave is immaterial to the argument for or against, but is certainly childish in an "I'm taking my ball and going home to pout" kind of way.
|
|
