| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2007 10:11:43 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I've got two major beefs with this.
1. We have taken witch hunting to new levels here. This is suppose to be fun and educational. Reading the threads, rules and seeing the suspensions you'd think we are a bunch lying cheating scum. Personally I think DPC is a great and kind community and does not deserve this.
|
Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Some yahoo comes on these boards, states he is breaking the rules and he's proud of it! He asked for the inquire into his voting habits and the suspension was supported by the conclusive evidence of his cheating dating back to last fall.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
2. In order to be found guilty of this offense, SC has to assume that you voted high on the photos only because of who they were taken by.
|
Sorry...wrong again. They didn't have to assume anything. The stats speak for themselves.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So basically, we are hunting down cheaters when in reality it's just people that like a photo for different reasons then others.
|
Strike 3, you're out! It's not people who simply like a photo better, it's people who vote the picture higher simply because they know the person.
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 10:17:07. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:20:43 AM · #177 |
There is a simple solution.
Disband the SC and D&L, and give ultimate power of monarchy to Strikeslip.
He'll fix this place up good, reeeeal gooood.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:26:39 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
There is a simple solution.
Disband the SC and D&L, and give ultimate power of monarchy to Strikeslip.
He'll fix this place up good, reeeeal gooood.
|
I don't know... I hear that guy is a bit unstable! ;)
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:47:54 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by LanceW:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I've got two major beefs with this.
1. We have taken witch hunting to new levels here. This is suppose to be fun and educational. Reading the threads, rules and seeing the suspensions you'd think we are a bunch lying cheating scum. Personally I think DPC is a great and kind community and does not deserve this.
|
Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Some yahoo comes on these boards, states he is breaking the rules and he's proud of it! He asked for the inquire into his voting habits and the suspension was supported by the conclusive evidence of his cheating dating back to last fall.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
2. In order to be found guilty of this offense, SC has to assume that you voted high on the photos only because of who they were taken by.
|
Sorry...wrong again. They didn't have to assume anything. The stats speak for themselves.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So basically, we are hunting down cheaters when in reality it's just people that like a photo for different reasons then others.
|
Strike 3, you're out! It's not people who simply like a photo better, it's people who vote the picture higher simply because they know the person. |
Strike 1. I'm not just talking about Steve. He pretty much got what he asked for here. Others were suspended as well, and we are all being watched.
Strike 2. Stats don't speak. I assure I am as familiar with stats as probably anyone on this site. Stats alone can't prove someone cheated, they can only say my voting looks fishy. You are assuming it's impossible for me to believe the photos I scored actually deserved the score I gave. Stats ignore the human element.
Strike 3. So you don't like the crappy photo your 3 year old son drew for you and you hung on your fridge? Personal reasons can't play a role in how much you like or dislike a photo? |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:51:29 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 1. I'm not just talking about Steve. He pretty much got what he asked for here. Others were suspended as well, and we are all being watched.
|
Sorry, but they also got what they deserved. They were busted for cheating, plain and simple!
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 2. Stats don't speak. I assure I am as familiar with stats as probably anyone on this site. Stats alone can't prove someone cheated, they can only say my voting looks fishy. You are assuming it's impossible for me to believe the photos I scored actually deserved the score I gave. Stats ignore the human element.
|
Sorry, but giving out all 10's to someone and then in return receiving all 10's is cheating! Again, Plain and Simple! Stats do speak!
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 3. So you don't like the crappy photo your 3 year old son drew for you and you hung on your fridge? Personal reasons can't play a role in how much you like or dislike a photo? |
What's your kids picture hanging on your fridge have to do with DPC? Anyway, if it's someone you know and just can't stop the urge to always vote a 10 on their images, move along, don't vote. Again, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:51:57 AM · #181 |
One thing strikes me as I finish reading this thread:
The "friend-voting" criteria hasn't been applied to the entire database of users. Stu was only examined after he foolishly admitted to voting in a biased manner. After all the hype about the super-duper mega wonderful methods of statistically checking all of the voting for bias and cheating......
we find out it hasn't really been done. Or Stu would have already been suspended months ago. Maybe this is the burr in Stu's saddle. Who knows? I've enjoyed this thread. This forum community is one of the most vibrant and dynamic of all the ones I participate on the internet. It's actually made me want to go out and photograph something today!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:53:27 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
In order to be found guilty of this offense, SC has to assume that you voted high on the photos only because of who they were taken by. If I really like the photo my son/daughter/wife/friend took why can't I vote it high? Maybe it has more personal meaning to me then other people. To me the photo is a 10 and in order to find me guilty SC has to say that I truly do not believe the photo deserves a 10, or that the particular photo does not deserve a 10. |
You shouldn't be afraid to vote a PHOTO whatever you think it's worth. That's what you're supposed to do- judge the quality of the photo! Do not assume you'll get in trouble for that because it's not the case. Bias voting generally results in a clear pattern that few would dispute, and fewer could justify. |
But that's the problem, I can get suspended and called a witch for voting what "I" think the photo is worth. If "I" think the photo is worth a 10, how can SC say I'm wrong?
And, if we are just judging the "quality" of the photo, how come it's perfectly okay for me to vote low on all male nudity because that's just something I don't want to see? Clearly I'm not basing my vote on the photo, the skill of the photographer or it's artistic merit. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:54:48 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
One thing strikes me as I finish reading this thread:
The "friend-voting" criteria hasn't been applied to the entire database of users. Stu was only examined after he foolishly admitted to voting in a biased manner. After all the hype about the super-duper mega wonderful methods of statistically checking all of the voting for bias and cheating......
we find out it hasn't really been done. Or Stu would have already been suspended months ago. Maybe this is the burr in Stu's saddle. Who knows? I've enjoyed this thread. This forum community is one of the most vibrant and dynamic of all the ones I participate on the internet. It's actually made me want to go out and photograph something today! |
No, I think what this says, is there is NO WITCH HUNT. The SC isn't out to get us otherwise, yes he probably would have been busted earlier. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:56:39 AM · #184 |
for those just coming in, it went down like this:
"I cheat, and I'm going to continue to cheat"
"your suspended"
"for what?"
"cheating"
"what rule did i break?"
"biased voting"
"that rule's vague"
(at this point the entire website chimed in that the rule is crystal clear)
"you guys are jerks"
:) |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:58:08 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
One thing strikes me as I finish reading this thread:
The "friend-voting" criteria hasn't been applied to the entire database of users. Stu was only examined after he foolishly admitted to voting in a biased manner. After all the hype about the super-duper mega wonderful methods of statistically checking all of the voting for bias and cheating......
|
Just to clarify, the criteria IS applied to the entire database. At the same time, every case is also evaluated by a group of humans who are looking for clear patterns rather than just hunches or statistical anomalies. Increased data generally provides clearer answers and we've tried to err on the side of caution whenever possible. That being said, standing up in front of the group and essentially yelling HEY LOOK AT ME I'M DOING SOMETHING WRONG is apt to earn your account an evaluation at its own special time.
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 10:59:00. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 10:58:36 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by LanceW:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 1. I'm not just talking about Steve. He pretty much got what he asked for here. Others were suspended as well, and we are all being watched.
|
Sorry, but they also got what they deserved. They were busted for cheating, plain and simple!
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 2. Stats don't speak. I assure I am as familiar with stats as probably anyone on this site. Stats alone can't prove someone cheated, they can only say my voting looks fishy. You are assuming it's impossible for me to believe the photos I scored actually deserved the score I gave. Stats ignore the human element.
|
Sorry, but giving out all 10's to someone and then in return receiving all 10's is cheating! Again, Plain and Simple! Stats do speak!
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Strike 3. So you don't like the crappy photo your 3 year old son drew for you and you hung on your fridge? Personal reasons can't play a role in how much you like or dislike a photo? |
What's your kids picture hanging on your fridge have to do with DPC? Anyway, if it's someone you know and just can't stop the urge to always vote a 10 on their images, move along, don't vote. Again, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! |
I hope you are never convicted of something because the stats said you did it. Stats say you won't come home from vegas with more money then you left and stats say you won't win the lottery. Clearly people do. Stats also say I'm a better photographer then a lot of people here. Clearly I'm not. Stats are never the final word, I suggest you read the book "how to lie with statistics" A must read for anyone intersted in the subject. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:00:07 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by hopper:
for those just coming in, it went down like this:
"I cheat, and I'm going to continue to cheat"
"your suspended"
"for what?"
"cheating"
"what rule did i break?"
"biased voting"
"that rule's vague"
(at this point the entire website chimed in that the rule is crystal clear)
"you guys are jerks"
:) |
yeah that's pretty much it :), anyone waiting for godo!
Message edited by author 2007-06-07 11:00:22. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:01:27 AM · #188 |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:04:11 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I hope you are never convicted of something because the stats said you did it. Stats say you won't come home from vegas with more money then you left and stats say you won't win the lottery. Clearly people do. Stats also say I'm a better photographer then a lot of people here. Clearly I'm not. Stats are never the final word, I suggest you read the book "how to lie with statistics" A must read for anyone intersted in the subject. |
I'm not naive enough to simply rely on stats and neither are the SC here. The stats put up a flag and they investigate. Upon that investigation, sanctions are enforced if need be.
Again, pretty simple. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:15:27 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by idnic:
 |
You are correct of course, but I can't stop reading it!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:17:01 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
You are correct of course, but I can't stop reading it! |
It's just like watching Access Hollywood. Seeing people self-destruct is hard not to watch. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:17:15 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...how come it's perfectly okay for me to vote low on all male nudity because that's just something I don't want to see? Clearly I'm not basing my vote on the photo... |
Yes, you are. Otherwise, you wouldn't know there was male nudity in the photo. We all have our personal preferences and dislikes of particular subjects and styles... and there's nothing wrong with that. We do use a tiny shred of common sense. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:21:37 AM · #193 |
i think they're just trying to piss off the SC,hehehe
and you know what ? i think it's working :) |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:42:27 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...how come it's perfectly okay for me to vote low on all male nudity because that's just something I don't want to see? Clearly I'm not basing my vote on the photo... |
Yes, you are. Otherwise, you wouldn't know there was male nudity in the photo. We all have our personal preferences and dislikes of particular subjects and styles... and there's nothing wrong with that. We do use a tiny shred of common sense. |
Duh, and yes i'm looking at the photo and voting on the photo when I vote on a photo where I think I know the photographer? My "personal preference" may happen to be photos I have a personal connection to, or a dislike for male nudity.
If I vote low on all male nudity it's the same as if I vote high on a photo where I think I know the artist. Sorry, same thing. It's a personal preference.
And nice job cutting my quote to exclude the part you can't argue with.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:46:58 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by zaflabout:
i think they're just trying to piss off the SC,hehehe
and you know what ? i think it's working :) |
Damn, caught me!
Not really, it's just an opinion and I had some time this morning... I see nothing wrong with friend voting as long as people are not advertising their photo for that purpose. Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant and all this cheater accusation activity sucks for the community. Let people vote the way they want and let it be. It's not the end of the world. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 11:55:24 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Not really, it's just an opinion and I had some time this morning... I see nothing wrong with friend voting as long as people are not advertising their photo for that purpose. Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant and all this cheater accusation activity sucks for the community. Let people vote the way they want and let it be. It's not the end of the world. |
Sorry, but if you can't play by the rules, don't play at all. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:01:09 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And nice job cutting my quote to exclude the part you can't argue with. |
Just keeping the quotes short. That part was so laughable that it wasn't worth the keystrokes. You're just speculating wildly with no basis in fact.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I vote low on all male nudity it's the same as if I vote high on a photo where I think I know the artist. Sorry, same thing. It's a personal preference. |
We haven't suspended anyone for voting high where they THINK they know the artist. I get plenty of comments from people who think my shot is someone else's. Voting high where there's NO QUESTION you know the artist, and regardless of the quality of the entries, is what leads to suspension. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:04:52 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Not really, it's just an opinion and I had some time this morning... I see nothing wrong with friend voting as long as people are not advertising their photo for that purpose. Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant and all this cheater accusation activity sucks for the community. Let people vote the way they want and let it be. It's not the end of the world. |
If you want a contest where the quality of the photo doesn't matter then there are plenty of other contest sites to choose from.
This site is not about those type of contests. |
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:07:22 PM · #199 |
OK, so if there's an image that I don't "prefer", it meets the challenge and is technically a good image, I have to look past my personal preference and give the image a fair vote. If you hate cats, you have a bias opinion but you can have an unbaised opinion about the image as a whole. Maybe to some this doesn't make sense but take for example a dog show. The final judge for best of show is a poodle breeder, there is a poodle in the best of show, that judge has to be unbias and judge them as equals. The poodle doesn't always win.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2007 12:18:52 PM · #200 |
There's a lot of Steve-bashing going on here, and I'm not sure it's really called for. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but this is what I *think* is going on in Steve's mind:
1. Not too long ago there was a major flap over a certain, prominent member who had actively enlisted friends to vote on his images, and was banned for having done so.
2. More recently, as a result of the investigation into this member's "friend voting" scam, D&L put into place some software tools to track and identify "friend voting" when it takes place. There was a major discussion of this in the forums, and more than a few people were suspended for having engaged in the practice.
3. In a now-locked thread, Steve Davidson came forth and said "I have been doing something I think qualifies as "friend voting" for quite a while now." The hidden subtext to that announcement was "IS this "friend voting"? And if so, why haven't I been caught?"
4. Steve's point was, if I am reading him correctly, that the definition of "friend voting" is not anywhere near precise enough to make it a valid criterion for suspension.
5. As a result of his posted "admission of guilt", SC investigated Steve's voting patterns and determined he was, indeed, guilty of "friend voting".
6. Steve seems to feel, and I'm not sure I disagree with him, that the entire process is flawed if it took a voluntary "confession" by him to trigger the review and the suspension.
So I don't think he's being as obtuse as many of y'all seem to feel he is. He's desperately trying to hammer a point home, and I don't think the point (at least from his perspective) is entirely without validity. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions/perspective here, but to me that's not important.
What's important to me is that this is a long-standing member with what's (to him at least) a legitimate perception that's not being taken seriously by those who are choosing to respond to these threads.
And I think that's too bad. I "know" Steve well enough to be well aware that he's neither an idiot nor a troll.
R.
|
|
