| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2006 04:59:56 PM · #76 |
| Note that it doesn't say permanent ban, although that's always possible. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:01:06 PM · #77 |
| As site owner, langdon is permitted to administer less than the maximum punishment, at his sole discretion. I hardly think stating (in the rules) what could happen to someone who cheats constitutes an irrevocable commitment to administer that penalty in every case. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:12:49 PM · #78 |
Good work Langdon and the SC.
A proportionate penalty and very well handled. No need to form a linching mob, lets just get on with enjoying DPC and WPL.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:24:41 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Good work Langdon and the SC.
A proportionate penalty and very well handled. No need to form a linching mob, lets just get on with enjoying DPC and WPL. |
Totally agreed!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:29:16 PM · #80 |
| It is a system that sets itself up just to do that. Win at any cost. Once I saw the "team" thing being born, I stopped submitting. Any IDIOT could see this coming. Enjoy your faux photography people ! |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:31:06 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As site owner, langdon is permitted to administer less than the maximum punishment, at his sole discretion. I hardly think stating (in the rules) what could happen to someone who cheats constitutes an irrevocable commitment to administer that penalty in every case. |
Then I wish the the rules said something like "will result in penalties up to and including...". |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:33:03 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As site owner, langdon is permitted to administer less than the maximum punishment, at his sole discretion. I hardly think stating (in the rules) what could happen to someone who cheats constitutes an irrevocable commitment to administer that penalty in every case. |
Then I wish the the rules said something like "will result in penalties up to and including...". |
Why should it matter to anyone how legal/technical it gets? How are you damaged in your ability to participate by this decision? |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:33:28 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
It is a system that sets itself up just to do that. Win at any cost. Once I saw the "team" thing being born, I stopped submitting. Any IDIOT could see this coming. Enjoy your faux photography people ! |
your right the differnce of .15 points makes my otherwsie real photo faux. thanks for reminding me of what any IDIOT could see. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:35:25 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by langdon:
The recalculation will not affect any ribbons ... |
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:36:32 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As site owner, langdon is permitted to administer less than the maximum punishment, at his sole discretion. I hardly think stating (in the rules) what could happen to someone who cheats constitutes an irrevocable commitment to administer that penalty in every case. |
Then I wish the the rules said something like "will result in penalties up to and including...". |
Why should it matter to anyone how legal/technical it gets? How are you damaged in your ability to participate by this decision? |
My ability to participate...? I think I'm confused.
All I'm saying is that I know there is a difference between "will" and "might" and while I TOTALLY respect langdon's decisions as to penalties, and his right to make ANY decision that he pleases, I do think it creates a bit of confusion to state one thing and do another.
I don't think it matters in this situation at all, honestly. Just thinking that it might help for future if things are clearer. Maybe not. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:37:48 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
It is a system that sets itself up just to do that. Win at any cost. Once I saw the "team" thing being born, I stopped submitting. Any IDIOT could see this coming. Enjoy your faux photography people ! |
Gee, wonder how I got two pictures barely over the 5 mark in the WPL then, or how the same people who ribboned all the time before, are still ribboning. Or how that the inquiry showed your comment is (for the most part) full of crap.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:37:57 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by langdon:
The recalculation will not affect any ribbons ... |
|
To play devil's advocate... some people who never score high enough to get ribbons may truly feel there is a difference in placing 100th and 99th, for example. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:49:47 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by langdon:
The recalculation will not affect any ribbons ... |
|
To play devil's advocate... some people who never score high enough to get ribbons may truly feel there is a difference in placing 100th and 99th, for example. |
As someone who frequents the lower-third of the standings I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, but I still don't think it has much overall effect in the long run. Unlike most of the criminal "justice" system, we try to make any "punishment fit the crime" with a goal of rehabilitating the behavior of the offender, rather than merely exacting retribution or revenge. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:54:27 PM · #89 |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:58:58 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
 |
yeah, we are getting a bit too serious here. good call nick ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:01:31 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As someone who frequents the lower-third of the standings I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, but I still don't think it has much overall effect in the long run. Unlike most of the criminal "justice" system, we try to make any "punishment fit the crime" with a goal of rehabilitating the behavior of the offender, rather than merely exacting retribution or revenge. |
*nod* That makes total sense, and I really do agree. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:01:43 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
It is a system that sets itself up just to do that. Win at any cost. Once I saw the "team" thing being born, I stopped submitting. Any IDIOT could see this coming. Enjoy your faux photography people ! |
Come on people there was evidence of 131 votes that were skewed out of over 2.6 MILLION votes during the WPL2. Anyone want to figure out the %? 5.0384615384615384615384615384615e-5
6 photographers out of 140 = 4.2%
It was very minimal but I agree that the ones involved should be suspended to the extent that DPChallenge decides and the WPL decided.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 18:02:27. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:08:23 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
L2, I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the connection in the two quotes. |
I was thinking the same thing. I read them about 5 times and still don't get it. |
I get it... :)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:10:17 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Note that it doesn't say permanent ban, although that's always possible. |
If the site does not follow this rule so rigid, why be so tight with editing rules? Not that I am in for putting the rule violators on a burning cross and stone them to death, but you create a bit of semi-legal confusion here.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:14:10 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Note that it doesn't say permanent ban, although that's always possible. |
If the site does not follow this rule so rigid, why be so tight with editing rules? Not that I am in for putting the rule violators on a burning cross and stone them to death, but you create a bit of semi-legal confusion here. |
it's simple, this is a dictatorship, not a democracy. the SC serves at the behest of the Admins, and the people have nothing to do with it. The SC simply is carrying out the daily grind in a way that's in keeping with how D&L want it run.
In society, this would be a bad thing. For a website, it's probably a good thing.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:17:57 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that some of the signatures I want to see, such as the ones that have a simple link to a photographer's website. It's the obnoxious ones, such as yours, that I find annoying. I wish there was the equivalent to a spam filter for annoying signatures. |
as Azrifel mentioned, I guess you could just adblock them all. https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1865/ |
Thanks for the link! |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:21:09 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
If the site does not follow this rule so rigid, why be so tight with editing rules? |
Oh, but we DO follow it. The rules say offenders will be banned and they were... for a month. I'm sure you'd agree that not every offense warrants the DPC death penalty. If they were foolish enough to do it again, the ban would be much longer or permanent.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 18:22:50. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:25:50 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
If the site does not follow this rule so rigid, why be so tight with editing rules? |
Oh, but we DO follow it. The rules say offenders will be banned and they were... for a month. I'm sure you'd agree that not every offense warrants the DPC death penalty. If they were foolish enough to do it again, the ban would be much longer or permanent. |
Now there's the post some were looking for Shannon. The way the thread was going it made it look like no punishment was given other than the votes being removed. I wasn't interested in a lynching nor do I care who the participants were, but I was stunned to see that there was no punishment for an obvious violation.
Kudos.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 18:26:45.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 06:26:38 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
If the site does not follow this rule so rigid, why be so tight with editing rules? |
Oh, but we DO follow it. The rules say offenders will be banned and they were... for a month. I'm sure you'd agree that not every offense warrants the DPC death penalty. |
No. I am very satisfied with the way this has been dealt with and I am confident in the thrustworthiness of the participants (excluding the ones that have been caught).
Overall I am very happy with the way this site has been running since I first participated here. Trust me, I am not a village burner. :)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 07:15:20 PM · #100 |
I think the confusion here is that the rules clearly refer to both "banned" and "suspended", albeit in different places, and most users therefore take those words to mean different things.
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 03:58:06 PM EDT.
