| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2007 11:35:01 PM · #126 |
| I once told a stewardess that i have a explosive personality... she didn't like that... |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 11:36:07 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by idnic:
DPC is not a democracy. No one was born with certain inalienable rights to participate. The site belongs to Drew and Langdon and it is they, and their assigned who allow us to all play along --- IF we play within the rules they have set forth. If we don't like those rules or cannot play within them, we have a zillion other options on the internet where we can find some rules which better suit us. |
I believe in rules... just tell nme what they are... I will play by them.
I explaind my behavior and questioned the rules as written. "Friend voting" is not even defined within the rules, much less forbidden.
I got suspended for one and only one reason... I explained how I vote and questioned authority and the response to that was to suspend me.
Was I suspended for any offense I'd committed? NO!
My suspension was an arbitrary application of vague rules, as wrong as it was applied to other "Friend Voters".
If someone wants to make conspiracy voting illegal than do so.
But what I did is NOT a violation of ANY rule. I take offense at the arbitrary application of undefined rules.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 11:37:03 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Not saying it's true one way or the other, just that the general concept is false. |
The general concept in this specific instance is NOT false. The perpetrator identified himself as such, confessed to the transgression, and evidence presented to bolster the claim of guilt... ergo the concept is certainly NOT flawed in this instance.
Ray |
The key is the evidence. If there had been no evidence the concept certainly WOULD be flawed. A confession does not equal a conviction, a person could be lying. |
Oh but there was evidence, and you see I did not limit my arguments solely to the confession as you seemed to suggest in you previous submission. I do know a few things about the law, having been involved in some aspects of it for 30 some odd years.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 11:38:00 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I explaind my behavior and questioned the rules as written. "Friend voting" is not even defined within the rules, much less forbidden. |
what did the suspension notice says?
Message edited by author 2007-06-06 23:38:35. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 11:40:37 PM · #130 |
| Ha ha ha... i laugh at you steve... and i never laugh at people, i think its rude... but i laugh at YOU. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 11:59:25 PM · #131 |
| This reminds me of my old Usenet days. Check out this Wikipedia definition. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:04:24 AM · #132 |
Steve
You’ve been on the site since 2002. You’re practically a Charter Member. When I came aboard a year later, you were a well established and well liked member and you still are. I respect your photography and your intellect. And, as these things go, I consider you a friend, albeit an Internet one. Yes, I was also one of those who agonized over your fate when you went missing a while back.
The other day I gave a Critique Club critique to a member and noticed you had given him a detailed comment. It was so good, I just told him to do what you said. He marked my critique “helpful.”
Steve, with the best will in the world, I would suggest there are times to hold ‘em and times to fold ‘em.
Please Steve: Keep up your commenting; keep up your mentoring, keep your voting patterns separate and fair to all on the site.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:11:46 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Steve, with the best will in the world, I would suggest there are times to hold ‘em and times to fold ‘em. |
I agree... this is one of the times to hold 'em! And I will.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:21:24 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by swhiddon:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I have no problem with being "busted", but does someone have the fortitude or GUTS to tell me why? That is what chaps my hind! |
Steve in you original thread people including myself tried to tell you what you were doing was wrong. The word “bias” was defined from dictionary to examples but you did not seem to want to get it. After reading your OP I said to myself, “what is he doing? Does he really do this? Then it hit me, you were trying to prove a point (that I think is mute) by getting busted. Then you could move on to this debate that you would have not been caught if it weren’t for you admitting to ‘friend voting’. I feel you were trying to play the SC into banning you in hopes to make a point and I still don’t see the point your trying to make.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I wasn't "busted" until I questioned the rules. Is that right? Nope! The RULES must be defined... DO IT! |
You were busted after you admitted opening in the forums for all to see that you were a ‘friend voter’. In your words, “I’m a “Friend Voter”… there, I said it… and I’m glad! My first confession… I don’t plan to change.” I would guess to say this sparked a look into your voting patter and your confession was found to be true by the facts held within the sites vote history. Questioning the rule did not get you busted!
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If you are going to accuse and convict someone of a crime at least have the common decency to define the crime! |
The crime was defined many times and in many ways in attempts to get you to understand.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Nobody questioned me or told me what I did wrong prior to to the 'offense' for what I was accused, tried and convicted. All, I did was question the rules? Is that right? I don't think so. I don't believe anyone else thinks that either. |
We live in a world where everyone that does wrong will not be caught, that’s a fact. And in the internet world it is magnified. You admitted to the offence then questioned the rule. So no you did more than just question the rule.
In your original thread I posted an example of friend voting using a different state and substituted it with DPC ( ). Did you read it? If so could you possibly say that judge (voter) was doing nothing wrong?
Here is the scenario I posted incase you did not see it amongst the many post.
Simplified:
You’re a judge (voter) at the Olympic games (DPChallenge). A gymnast (friend) starts her routine (takes a picture) on the balance beam (enters a challenge). She has an average routine (photograph), she bobbled a few times (photo not technically sound), didn’t go for a high difficulty performance (took a dull photograph) and she didn’t stick her dismount (had no wow factor). But yet you give her a 10 (I would call that a bias "friend" 10 vote). |
You know what... I tried to answer all questions but the discussion was locked before I had a chance to do that, wasn't it? And then after explaining that in the second one I was arbitrarily suspended and that discussion was closed to.
What do you suppose that means?
If you want to discuss the issues further with me my email is azleader@yahoo.com Don't PM me through the system.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:26:09 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Steve, with the best will in the world, I would suggest there are times to hold ‘em and times to fold ‘em. |
I agree... this is one of the times to hold 'em! And I will. |
I've been offline for most of the day, and am just catching up. I've read the previous threads, and I still don't understand just what it is that you are trying to accomplish here.
To me, it seems that you are being deliberately obtuse. This method of friend voting that you espouse has earned you a suspension. Encouraging others to follow your lead will only lead to more suspensions if, in fact, they also engage in this biased voting.
It's hard to believe that you did not know or understand that what you were doing was wrong. Even if you did not understand prior to the most recent three dramatic voting suspension threads, your continued contumacious postings in those threads proves both that you were aware friend voting was not tolerated here at DPC, and that you clearly understood what friend voting was.
It really doesn't matter if you think that friend voting is OK - it's not allowed here.
The shame of your action is that you were not the only one affected by your flouting of the rules. While you claim that your desire was to help your friends, the opposite has come to fruition.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:26:21 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Not saying it's true one way or the other, just that the general concept is false. |
The general concept in this specific instance is NOT false. The perpetrator identified himself as such, confessed to the transgression, and evidence presented to bolster the claim of guilt... ergo the concept is certainly NOT flawed in this instance.
Ray |
The key is the evidence. If there had been no evidence the concept certainly WOULD be flawed. A confession does not equal a conviction, a person could be lying. |
Oh but there was evidence, and you see I did not limit my arguments solely to the confession as you seemed to suggest in you previous submission. I do know a few things about the law, having been involved in some aspects of it for 30 some odd years.
Ray |
I wasn't defending Steve. I was just opposing the view that a confession equals guilt. That's why I said IF there wasn't evidence. In this case there was. I don't see what you are trying to prove? |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:29:02 AM · #137 |
Maybe it's time to just drop it, for a while at least. It seems that feelings are getting hurt way too much, and even friendships are starting to get damaged, and that is simply way to sad to have it happen like this. I know I really don't want to damage any friendships I have with both Steve and others in this thread.
Maybe it's time to stop, for all of us. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:39:38 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The key is the evidence. If there had been no evidence the concept certainly WOULD be flawed. A confession does not equal a conviction, a person could be lying. |
Originally posted by rayethier:
Oh but there was evidence, and you see I did not limit my arguments solely to the confession as you seemed to suggest in you previous submission. I do know a few things about the law, having been involved in some aspects of it for 30 some odd years.
Ray |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I wasn't defending Steve. I was just opposing the view that a confession equals guilt. That's why I said IF there wasn't evidence. In this case there was. I don't see what you are trying to prove? |
What I was trying to convey is the fact that you focused primarily on the "Confession" aspect of the argument, without mention of the other factors that came into play. There was no flaw as you seemed to advocate.
While it does remain true that a confession in itself may not withstand the test of time, such is not the case in the present scenario. The man committed a transgression, admitted to flaunting the rules, and a review of available data proved him to be guilty and sanctions doled out... END OF STORY.
I am NOT trying to prove anything, but merely offered a view counter to yours.
Have a great day :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 01:07:33. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:42:39 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Maybe it's time to just drop it, for a while at least. It seems that feelings are getting hurt way too much, and even friendships are starting to get damaged, and that is simply way to sad to have it happen like this. I know I really don't want to damage any friendships I have with both Steve and others in this thread.
Maybe it's time to stop, for all of us. |
I agree with these sentiments...nothing will be gained from this circular debate.
We seem to be witnessing something which could best be described as: "My mind is made up.... don't confuse me with facts.
Sad, harsh, but apropos.
Good night all.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 00:43:05. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:44:08 AM · #140 |
You know what is amazing....is some people just don't get it. I think the issue has been explained 1001 ways to the member in question, but he absolutely either:
1. Refuses to let it sink in.
or
2. Just doesn't get it.
It is a dead issue. It is an obvious rule, code, concept, precept, idea or whatever else you want to call it. It is cheating to vote subjectively for friends. End of story. Please accept it dude and move on. Everyone.....EVERYONE agrees. That should count for something right?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:44:27 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by L2:
I've been offline for most of the day, and am just catching up. I've read the previous threads, and I still don't understand just what it is that you are trying to accomplish here.
... |
Fair enough... I'll tell you what I'm trying to accomplish. It is really quit simple.
I'm questioning a vague DPC law that gets people suspended.
You come up with a new term called "friend voting" that you refuse to define but are perfectly happy handing out sanctions for it. Then threaten people with further sanctions in the announcement if they don't comply.
Then, when someone like me question it you respond by suspending me. I get a form letter from the "SC" that says I've been suspended but no specific charges are made. It says to respond if I have questions and I do, asking to identify the charges so I can refute them, but get no response whatsoever.
Is that clear enough for you?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:50:00 AM · #142 |
not sure if this was recently added, but if they arent, then you've easily violated these 3, as far as i see:
# vote in a manner that suggests an intent to disrupt the voting system.
# offer or cast biased votes for any other user.
# attempt to alter the point totals for any entry in any way.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:50:20 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
. It says to respond if I have questions and I do, asking to identify the charges so I can refute them, but get no response whatsoever.
Is that clear enough for you? |
There is nothing to refute. You already admitted what is not allowed. Your admission sealed your suspension. You can't refute yourself, can you?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:51:47 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
My official recommendation to you is that unless you are prepared to be suspended because you might have a legitimate question that you want answered, disagree with authority or agree with anything I might say then steer away from this type of discussion all together. |
lol. I found your whole thing quite amusing, sorry to say. I am not scared of disagreeing with authority but that is not the point of this. Like I said, I agreed with you on some points but really, as many others said, why is it fair that only your friends get the "bump" when there are a LOT of underrated photogs out there.
My message... spread the love! lol. We could all use a little chilling out being voting nazis IMO. |
I'm glad that at least one person can find some amusement in my suspention.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:52:58 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
There is nothing to refute. You already admitted what is not allowed. Your admission sealed your suspension. You can't refute yourself, can you? |
unless he could bribe a doctor to diagnose him to have schizophrenia or something |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:58:44 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
. It says to respond if I have questions and I do, asking to identify the charges so I can refute them, but get no response whatsoever.
Is that clear enough for you? |
There is nothing to refute. You already admitted what is not allowed. Your admission sealed your suspension. You can't refute yourself, can you? |
Tell me, PLEASE, what is "friend voting"? What crime did I commit? That is what I'm convicted for yet never confronted with any evidence.
It is a crime, BTW, I've never been accused of before. How do you explain that I suddenly get sanctioned for this new and undefined "crime"? Have you seen the evidence? I certainly have not despite the fact I have asked.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:04:41 AM · #147 |
First, Steve, there is no "crime" here. There is no court of law. There is no evidence. Crap man, if they wanted to, DPC could boot me off for the fun of it. So please, I would ask to at least not get heated over it.
And lastly, like I said, you admitted and proudly flaunted (quite possibly a big mistake) your advocation for friend voting. That is not allowed. Everyone knows this. It is a rule. But let's say it isn't a rule for argument's sake......doesn't something inside of you say, "hey I may have good intentions, but this isn't really fair." I think that is the most important thing to think about. Voting preferentially allows the very voting system of DPC to collapse. And that would be unfortunate. Fair and honest critiques and voting is an important component here. You must see that....
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 01:06:01.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:06:48 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
You know what is amazing....is some people just don't get it. I think the issue has been explained 1001 ways to the member in question, but he absolutely either:
1. Refuses to let it sink in.
or
2. Just doesn't get it.
It is a dead issue. It is an obvious rule, code, concept, precept, idea or whatever else you want to call it. It is cheating to vote subjectively for friends. End of story. Please accept it dude and move on. Everyone.....EVERYONE agrees. That should count for something right? |
So your argument is that if everyone agrees I'm wrong, then I am.
OK... tell me WHAT is wrong and state it in definable, behavioral terms. I promise not to violate the rules. Tell me the rule. Bet you can't do that. Even the SC has not done that.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:07:16 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Tell me, PLEASE, what is "friend voting"? What crime did I commit? That is what I'm convicted for yet never confronted with any evidence. |
You and your friend (and we both know who it is so let's not play the clueless game any longer, okay?) traded tens on at least every single entry either of you submitted since last November which is only as long as the system tracks. You didn't vote a single other user that high even half as many times during that period. I know that you are completely capable of understanding the remainder should you choose to do so, so I won't waste my time explaining.
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 01:59:41. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 01:09:34 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
So your argument is that if everyone agrees I'm wrong, then I am.
OK... tell me WHAT is wrong and state it in definable, behavioral terms. I promise not to violate the rules. Tell me the rule. Bet you can't do that. Even the SC has not done that. |
No that is not my argument at all. In fact I don't need an argument....you admitted your own misdeed. I was simply trying to appeal to your basic sensibilities. One that agrees that if everyone believes a certain practice is unfair and harmful to a community, then it should be punished. It is a basic priniciple for all communities, societies and cultures.
|
|
