| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2004 11:56:37 AM · #251 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Not obvious or evident? Sure, if you completely ignore the facts.
Like the fact that this thread is as long as it is, or the fact that there have been many other similar threads, or the fact that some members have threatened to stop participating.
Yup, if you ignore those facts then it does become a bit less obvious.
I find it interesting that in one message you state, "Any change that has happened has generated debate and complaints. This isn't new. People also threaten to leave over things." Then, in the very next message you say, "it isn't obvious, or evident." Meaning of course that it isn't obvious that this has caused any problems, debate, and complaints. I'm not sure that I understand your message. Are you saying that something that generates so much debate and complaints is just SOP, or that it's actually a good thing, or that it hasn't happened?
Actually, I really expected someone to express the opinion that the benefits of the masters challenges outweigh the problems they have caused. That might do more to sway my opinion than anything I've heard so far. Personally, I don't see it that way, but maybe there's some benefit(s) that I'm not aware of yet.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:01:03 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
How did you determine this 'fact'? There are only half a dozen or so truly 'arguing' against the Masters Challenge and only myself and a few others arguing for it... Is that a true division? During last Novembers editing rules debates, there was much more division than during this 'controversy'. Would you say that advanced editing is bad then?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:05:02 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Yup, if you ignore those facts then it does become a bit less obvious.
|
Okay, lets have some facts:
I did a very rough count, in just this thread. I see about 10 people complaining. There are 28,722 users. Lets assume for the sake of discussion I've miscounted and 50 people are actually posting, complaining, and lets ignore the other 10 or so people responding saying they think it is a great idea, just in this thread, many of who don't qualify either.
So, so far 0.17%, being generous (though actually 0.03%) of users of the site have registered their dislike of this additional challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:06:10 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Actually, I really expected someone to express the opinion that the benefits of the masters challenges outweigh the problems they have caused. That might do more to sway my opinion than anything I've heard so far. Personally, I don't see it that way, but maybe there's some benefit(s) that I'm not aware of yet. |
I have done. It is in my earlier posts. The advantages to the entire site far out weigh the occasional complaing posts of 10 people.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 12:07:14.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:06:26 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If they stay or leave is immaterial to the argument for or against, |
So, your opinion is that, even though it divides us, that shouldn't be taking into consideration? That's an interesting point of view. But, I think that only someone who doesn't care for the community as a whole would agree with that.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:06:28 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by micknewton:
Why, when it is obviously doing more harm than good, is the 'masters only' thing being continued? |
How did you determine this 'fact'? There are only half a dozen or so truly 'arguing' against the Masters Challenge and only myself and a few others arguing for it... Is that a true division? During last Novembers editing rules debates, there was much more division than during this 'controversy'. Would you say that advanced editing is bad then? |
A lot of people (at least myself) have been totally turned off by the name calling that happened earlier in this thread. I wasn't actively participating, so didn't take it personally, but I believe calling people "whiners" is name calling and I was surprised the site council participated in the discussion and yet didnt step in.
Basically, the effect is to cause many people from participating and expressing an opinion. I sure wouldn't want to be a whiner. ;) |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:08:34 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If they stay or leave is immaterial to the argument for or against, |
So, your opinion is that, even though it divides us, that shouldn't be taking into consideration? That's an interesting point of view. But, I think that only someone who doesn't care for the community as a whole would agree with that. |
You are still working on the assumption that it has 'divided us'
So far, the only available facts are that 10 people are unhappy out of 28,000 or so. If you want to speak about a 'community as a whole' you have to realise right now you are talking about a verifiable 0.03%
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:12:48 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
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... |
I am officially threatening to reach the point of leaving if the Masters' Challenges are stopped.
There. Both sides are even now.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:14:58 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by micknewton:
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... |
I am officially threatening to reach the point of leaving if the Masters' Challenges are stopped.
There. Both sides are even now.
|
On the more positive side, at least two people (bod included) have stated that the Masters challenges have encouraged them to return to dpc and actually enter challenges again. Jonpink was the other.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:20:40 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You are still working on the assumption that it has 'divided us'
So far, the only available facts are that 10 people are unhappy out of 28,000 or so. If you want to speak about a 'community as a whole' you have to realise right now you are talking about a verifiable 0.03% |
Don't discredit your entire argument with screwed-up numbers...A very small percentage of the 28,000 are actively participating in this site and a much smaller number participate in the forums.
I enjoy listening to the merits of both sides of this debate, but the occasional ridiculous post can ruin a good debate...why would you contribute to this debate with this kind of tactic when most of your posts make sense?
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 12:21:51.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:22:20 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Gordon:
You are still working on the assumption that it has 'divided us'
So far, the only available facts are that 10 people are unhappy out of 28,000 or so. If you want to speak about a 'community as a whole' you have to realise right now you are talking about a verifiable 0.03% |
Don't discredit your entire argument with screwed-up numbers...A very small percentage of the 28,000 are actively participating in this site and a much smaller number participate in the forums.
I enjoy listening to the merits on both sides of this debate, but the occasional ridiculous post can ruin a good debate...why would you contribute to this debate with this kind of tactic? |
I wasn't the one who started making up facts, is all. These are actual facts. We could claim that only a couple of thousand users are active, which brings the percentages up to 0.3% instead of 0.03%
This doesn't significantly change the only verifiable facts. There might well be a whole lot more unhappy, silent users. There might be a whole lot of happier silent users. But the only visible facts are directly contrary to the 'self evident' facts that were being claimed.
I also think the SC and admin have a responsibility to move the site in a positive direction for the majority, in some cases even inspite of complaints from some of the existing users. This isn't nor ever was, a democracy, or even a representative republic.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 12:24:50.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:23:37 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wasn't the one who started making up facts, is all. These are actual facts. We could claim that only a couple of thousand users are active, which brings the percentages up to 0.3% instead of 0.03%
This doesn't significantly change the only verifiable facts. |
Thank you, that's much more logical... *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:26:03 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wasn't the one who started making up facts, is all. These are actual facts. We could claim that only a couple of thousand users are active, which brings the percentages up to 0.3% instead of 0.03%
This doesn't significantly change the only verifiable facts. |
Thank you, that's much more logical... *rolls eyes* |
You don't think a dozen or so people are complaining ?
You don't think a few thousand people enter ?
Which one of these facts are you rolling your eyes at ?
Sorry if it doesn't support your opinion, but it is still the only verifiable data right now.
To throw another fact in to this, we are talking about 0.7% of all challenges offered so far. At the rate of 6 masters challenges per year, we are talking about 5% of the total challenges available to members, each year. Again - this are facts, you can roll your eyes if you like.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 12:28:13.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:27:26 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You are still working on the assumption that it has 'divided us'
So far, the only available facts are that 10 people are unhappy out of 28,000 or so. If you want to speak about a 'community as a whole' you have to realise right now you are talking about a verifiable 0.03% |
Wow, only 0.03%? Really? Well, I guess you've won me over.
Sorry whiners, but Gordon's "verifiable 0.03%" has changed my mind.
Gee, I can't wait to not participate in the new masters challenge, and be overwhelmed and tutored by their magnificence. And to think I won't have to be bothered by looking at the whiner's less-than-perfect photos too. Wow!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:28:45 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Sorry whiners, but Gordon's "verifiable 0.03%" has changed my mind.
|
You started claiming facts. If you feel like backing 'em up - have at it.
You claimed it was obviously damaging the site.
You claimed it was self evident that it was unpopular. Back it up.
So far we've got at least two past winners who have returned to the site.
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 12:30:38.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:31:23 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You don't think a dozen or so people are complaining ?
You don't think a few thousand people enter ?
Which one of these facts are you rolling your eyes at ?
Sorry if it doesn't support your opinion, but it is still the only verifiable data right now. |
Gordon, I agree with the point you were trying to get across in that post. It could have been presented with more sense, that's all.
Refuting the opinion that "the community is divided" by saying that only .03% are against the Master's challenge isn't accurate. There is no 'fact' that 10 people out of 28,000 are unhappy, as you stated...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:36:44 PM · #267 |
For the record...
I have participated in this thread but have not said whether I am in favor of or against having "Masters Challenges." Nor do I intend to say toward which side of the issue I am leaning. If that changes your calculations, fine.
Also, please do not include me in your count of "whiners" as I sorely mistook this thread for a discussion when I made my previous posts.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:50:30 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
[...]saying that only .03% are against the Master's challenge isn't accurate. There is no 'fact' that 10 people out of 28,000 are unhappy, as you stated... |
My understanding is that Gordon's post is not a statement that there are only 10 DPCers who are unhappy about Masters Challenges BUT that there are only 10 who have openly expressed their unhappiness and hence only 10 opinions on that side that can be verified/ presented as fact.
I think it's obvious that there are additional DPCers who are unhappy about the challenge and additional DPCers who support but since it we don't actually have any evidence of this those silent DPCers can't be counted in any statistical tally.
Really it's just a way of reminding posters that all they are stating here is their opinions and that insisting their opinions are evident/ fact/ correct doesn't make them so.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 12:55:42 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You started claiming facts. If you feel like backing 'em up - have at it. |
I already have.
1. Do you deny that it has caused desension? No, you mearly state that that isn’t a bad thing. I disagree.
2. Do you deny that it has caused some to consider leaving? No, you say that that is no problem because it’s only a few of the members. Again, I disagree.
Originally posted by Gordon:
You claimed it was obviously damaging the site. |
Obviously you believe differently, that something that alienates some members is okay as long as the remaining members get to benefit from ‘The Masters’ glorious fountain of knowledge. The word “hubris” comes to mind. We can still get any benefits available from these people’s skill by viewing and commenting on their entries in regular challenges. If they felt the need to move on because they weren’t appreciated enough or challenged enough without special challenges just for them, then maybe this is no longer the place for them. This is a very small pond, and there’s a whole big ocean out there where they can find all the competition they can handle, and then some.
Originally posted by Gordon:
You claimed it was self evident that it was unpopular. Back it up. |
That I did not do. That is you putting words in my mouth. Actually, I think it is popular with many, and obviously unpopular with some.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:14:31 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If they stay or leave is immaterial to the argument for or against, |
So, your opinion is that, even though it divides us, that shouldn't be taking into consideration? That's an interesting point of view. But, I think that only someone who doesn't care for the community as a whole would agree with that. |
Yes, you are right I don't believe it should not be a factor. The fact that someone decides to leave a community, online or otherwise is not relevant to the argument for change or against it. A loud, vocal minority (to say the least) should not be able to hold hostage the evolution of a community.
I have to take exception to the implication that I do not care for this community. That is just plain wrong. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother with any of this discussion, I wouldn't want the community to grow, change and evolve into something better. I would much rather a few disgruntled and childish members leave than to have this community that I care about turn stagnant and wither on the vine. I'd hate to see DPC degenerate because the best of its memebers are not rewarded occasionally with a showcase for their talents and they leave to pursue their interests elsewhere. Is that what you want? Stagnation?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:19:00 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
[...]
Originally posted by Gordon:
You claimed it was obviously damaging the site. |
Obviously you believe differently, that something that alienates some members is okay as long as the remaining members get to benefit from ‘The Masters’ glorious fountain of knowledge. The word “hubris” comes to mind. We can still get any benefits available from these people’s skill by viewing and commenting on their entries in regular challenges. If they felt the need to move on because they weren’t appreciated enough or challenged enough without special challenges just for them, then maybe this is no longer the place for them. This is a very small pond, and there’s a whole big ocean out there where they can find all the competition they can handle, and then some.
[...]
|
It's ok for "masters" to feel alienated and leave the site because it's not challenging, but it's not ok for "regular" members to feel alienated by a new challenge made for "masters".. am i the only one seeing the contradiction here?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:24:57 PM · #272 |
Great post, Spazmo...I agree with everything you said and the way you said it.
I've got a question regarding Refracted's post (and it's a question, not a counterpoint!)...
Is the Master's Challenge any more of a challenge or does it add any value to the site for the Master's, other than recognition?
Somebody else said below that the value of the Master's challenge is for those voting/commenting...I see some merit in this but what about the value for the 'Masters'?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:27:35 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I've got a question regarding Refracted's post (and it's a question, not a counterpoint!)...
Is the Master's Challenge any more of a challenge or does it add any value to the site for the Master's, other than recognition?
Somebody else said below that the value of the Master's challenge is for those voting/commenting...I see some merit in this but what about the value for the 'Masters'? |
I would imagine that at least 69 Masters felt that it had some sort of value or they wouldn't have entered. I don't think that simply being allowed to enter brings any more recognition than they already have by having the ribbons on their profile. Losing a Masters challenge doesn't up your recognition much either, does it? |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:35:19 PM · #274 |
Hey micknewton maybe, just maybe you could learn something from the Masters challenge? Maybe learn a different way of composing a photo or get some inspiration ..the list is endless.
Isn't that a single good reason? |
|
|
|
11/02/2004 01:40:24 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by mk:
I would imagine that at least 69 Masters felt that it had some sort of value or they wouldn't have entered. I don't think that simply being allowed to enter brings any more recognition than they already have by having the ribbons on their profile. Losing a Masters challenge doesn't up your recognition much either, does it? |
Had I been eligible, I would have entered it because it was there...and I would have enjoyed the recognition for my achievements.
I'm just wondering, for the Masters, what was the benefit of not having all of the other members participate?
I hate to have to include a clause in many of my posts, but previous reactions have proven the necessity:
Clause: I'm not stating an opinion through a rhetorical question, I'm literally asking a question to gain information!
Message edited by author 2004-11-02 13:42:07.
|
|
