| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2009 04:16:46 PM · #101 |
Agreed--both with the uselessness of the project, and with being appalled at the backlash:
Any "code" will be created by a few who will attempt to impose it on the many, the vast majority of which have no need for it in any case. The "code" will not serve to change behaviour of willful "violators" nor will it influence the behaviour of accidental "violators".
It seems to me that the desire for the code is to have something "heavier" to swing when the self-appointed DPC Police want to go after someone. It will serve to make them feel even more justified in the attacks, more self-righteous. Going after people who self-reveal a variance from what the challenge expectation seemed to be will not encourage more self-revelation.
The tone and nature of front-page forum threads is certainly trending toward the negative lately. I don't see the value in churning this sort of thing up even more. Throwing more chum in the water just attracts more sharks.
The more this site becomes focused on rules and codes and enforcement, the less it becomes focused on photography--and the less useful and valuable it becomes overall. The vocal minority seems to be more interested in seeking out and punishing "violators" and arguing forcefully in all manner of forum threads than they are in the enjoyment, celebration, and beauty of photography overall.
In my view, if we need more rigor on anything at this site, it would be in the enforcement of forum behaviour (already documented, no new "code" required). It seems like any thread here can turn on a dime, now, and simply blocking the Rant section is insufficient if one wants to just be conversing about photography.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:16:49 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Like I said, walk away or accept it. The member who submitted that image is one in rather high standing with a lot of the community, he has been here for some time, he knows the rules, he understands what is meant by "spirt of the challenge", etc. But, he also knew that what he was doing was not against the rules, and that the challenge itself was "unenforceable." He obviously knew that people would not be stoked about it either, he knew that they would be angry, he knew there would be a lynch mob, etc. He didn't need a Code of Ethics to tell him that. The bottom line is, a code of ethics only works if the ground work for those ethics are in the person originally. If i'm a cheater, I'm going to cheat, and a text document on a website where I know nobody, nobody knows me, and I have nothing at stake...not gonna persuade me not to do it. I think if its that big of an issue, you are better off moving on to another site, as I feel that this is an aspect of DPC that won't ever change. |
I'd like to believe his choice was due to ignorance and he was misguided by something or someone. I'm sorry you feel he "knows" he is a cheat.
We have all identified the problem, what is the solution? Walking away is dismissive and has proven to be the wrong choice over and over again. |
I dare say you have identified a problem. There are several/many that would say (and have said) no "code" is needed, or wanted. There is no "we all" on dpc. In almost 8 years, I've never seen a topic that everyone agreed on. |
Is it not a problem he was chastised? That people were upset? Was this a SC imposed human "lab rat" experiment Karma?? ;-) |
IMO, the bigger problem was the level people stooped to in response to him.
I cannot control how people react -- only they can control that.
We don't do "lab rat" experiments. We prefer larger animals. |
Cause and effect. Why be surprised by the heat when you had the power to prevent the fire. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:18:38 PM · #103 |
looking from a larger vantage point - so to speak. how far has ethics gotten the business world.
you can't instill ethics into another individual. it's a choice each individual makes on their own. whether they are ignorant to the fact they are being unethical ( by someone elses standards ) or not - is irrelevant.
by creating a code of ethics, is there going to be some sort Yes/No poll each member has to take to acknowledge that they accept and will abide by the code ?
will they only have been unethical if they voted yes, and then didn't follow the code ?
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:21:54 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Cause and effect. Why be surprised by the heat when you had the power to prevent the fire. |
(snipped for reading ease)
And what you, and some others, either couldn't or wouldn't grasp is that the fire was "legal." It may not have been in the fireplace, but it was still on the hearth.
What I see you asking for is a "code" that essentially gives SC the power to do whatever they want when it comes to the "spirit" of things. It is difficult as it is to enforce the letter of the law with consistency and fairness. To add in another subjective judgement call is neither efficient or effective.
eta: and having said that, I am now finished with this thread. You may continue to blow the clarion for as long as you see fit, but I have given you my opinion. YMMV.
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 16:23:23. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:24:48 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyway, this proposition is predicated on the assumption that something is broken in DPCLand that needs fixing. As usual, nothing's broken but people's perception. Drafting a "code of ethics" that is unenforceable in relation to the rules is nothing but a shaming device.
In my opinion, Ivo, your viewpoint is so rigid, and your delivery so caustic, that anything you suggest along these lines is going to seem self-serving. |
You are right on target Louis. A printed ethics statement is just another tool that the DPC rules police can use to lower and debase others. Ivo says he wants ethics yet he bashed people all night about cheating and this morning he suddenly woke up saintly? The tone in this thread from him is like that from a snake and it reeks of ugliness! Ivo and his like would rather see the front page have a huge statement saying if you don't follow our rules this will happen to you, followed by crucifixes with site members they dislike on them...and why not, worked for the Romans. BTW Ivo, missed your thread last week regarding this topic, and the week before and the week before. You've been a member since 2004 and you're just now suggesting this? Have a standard of your own and live by it, don't press others to be the same... |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:25:42 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by soup:
looking from a larger vantage point - so to speak. how far has ethics gotten the business world.
you can't instill ethics into another individual. it's a choice each individual makes on their own. whether they are ignorant to the fact they are being unethical ( by someone elses standards ) or not - is irrelevant.
by creating a code of ethics, is there going to be some sort Yes/No poll each member has to take to acknowledge that they accept and will abide by the code ?
will they only have been unethical if they voted yes, and then didn't follow the code ? |
These are not the ten commandments folks! God will not smite you!
You always have choice.
There is a reason they print "Hot Coffee" on coffee cups. They did research this ya know. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:28:34 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyway, this proposition is predicated on the assumption that something is broken in DPCLand that needs fixing. As usual, nothing's broken but people's perception. Drafting a "code of ethics" that is unenforceable in relation to the rules is nothing but a shaming device.
In my opinion, Ivo, your viewpoint is so rigid, and your delivery so caustic, that anything you suggest along these lines is going to seem self-serving. |
You are right on target Louis. A printed ethics statement is just another tool that the DPC rules police can use to lower and debase others. Ivo says he wants ethics yet he bashed people all night about cheating and this morning he suddenly woke up saintly? The tone in this thread from him is like that from a snake and it reeks of ugliness! Ivo and his like would rather see the front page have a huge statement saying if you don't follow our rules this will happen to you, followed by crucifixes with site members they dislike on them...and why not, worked for the Romans. BTW Ivo, missed your thread last week regarding this topic, and the week before and the week before. You've been a member since 2004 and you're just now suggesting this? Have a standard of your own and live by it, don't press others to be the same... |
Are you threatened by the cooking instructions on a box of Kraft dinner?
Geesh, will you at least try to creatively slag me? ;-)
Hiss
ETA: I almost peeded after reading this. Is there some sort of biblical reference for my evil kind?? Thanks for the smile!
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 16:34:22. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:35:38 PM · #108 |
no. someone ( McDonalds i think ) got sued, and wanted to avoid it happening again actually... others just followed suit. i wouldn't really call that research.
Originally posted by Ivo:
There is a reason they print "Hot Coffee" on coffee cups. They did research this ya know. ;-) |
if God were to smite me - i'd tell Him i don't believe in Him, and therefore His smite is empty... kinda like the coffee cup i used this morning...
if you want a code of ethics to follow - write it ! my point was - a code of ethics means nothing even when you have to take an oath to prove that you will follow the code - if you're an unethical person...
ETA - i do appreciate that you actually read what i write though :)
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 16:39:48.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:36:54 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
[
There is a reason they print "Hot Coffee" on coffee cups. They did research this ya know. ;-) |
I think it was the lawsuits from people who blamed the seller for their spilling hot coffee on themselves. Not sure I see the relationship here.
Give it a rest as you are obviously in the minority on this one. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:39:52 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by Ivo:
[
There is a reason they print "Hot Coffee" on coffee cups. They did research this ya know. ;-) |
I think it was the lawsuits from people who blamed the seller for their spilling hot coffee on themselves. Not sure I see the relationship here.
I think it was the chastising from people who blamed the entrant for spilling hot coffe on their challenge descriptions.
Give it a rest as you are obviously in the minority on this one. |
Could I be clearer? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:43:54 PM · #111 |
Wow...
If it's so innocuous and irrelevant, why not let it happen and see what comes of it?
Surely you guys'd enjoy taking this apart more if you actually had some grist to chew on instead of just fragging the idealist of the concept.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:44:23 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by soup:
no. someone ( McDonalds i think ) got sued, and wanted to avoid it happening again actually... others just followed suit. i wouldn't really call that research.
Originally posted by Ivo:
There is a reason they print "Hot Coffee" on coffee cups. They did research this ya know. ;-) |
if God were to smite me - i'd tell Him i don't believe in Him, and therefore His smite is empty... kinda like the coffee cup i used this morning...
if you want a code of ethics to follow - write it ! my point was - a code of ethics means nothing even when you have to take an oath to prove that you will follow the code - if you're an unethical person...
ETA - i do appreciate that you actually read what i write though :) |
If I write it and send it to you, can you post it under a different name? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:45:43 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wow...
If it's so innocuous and irrelevant, why not let it happen and see what comes of it?
Surely you guys'd enjoy taking this apart more if you actually had some grist to chew on instead of just fragging the idealist of the concept. |
Throw on your helmet dude! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:56:04 PM · #114 |
| I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this thread probably can get locked up at this point. Good attempt, poor execution. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:58:58 PM · #115 |
| I agree, once again it is digressing...just like last nights. SC Please lock this thread. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:02:39 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
The "code" will not serve to change behaviour of willful "violators" nor will it influence the behaviour of accidental "violators". AGREED
It seems to me that the desire for the code is to have something "heavier" to swing when the self-appointed DPC Police want to go after someone. YOU WATCH TOO MUCH TV It will serve to make them feel even more justified in the attacks, more self-righteous. ALREADY HAPPENS WITHOUT A CODE Going after people who self-reveal a variance from what the challenge expectation seemed to be will not encourage more self-revelation. THINK BEFORE YOU STEP
The tone and nature of front-page forum threads is certainly trending toward the negative lately. I don't see the value in churning this sort of thing up even more. Throwing more chum in the water just attracts more sharks. CLEAN UP THE CHUM
The more this site becomes focused on rules and codes and enforcement, the less it becomes focused on photography--and the less useful and valuable it becomes overall. HENCE THE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES?The vocal minority seems to be more interested in seeking out and punishing "violators" and arguing forcefully in all manner of forum threads than they are in the enjoyment, celebration, and beauty of photography overall. THE VOCAL MINORITY WISHES FOR THE SHEEP TO DEAL WITH THE WOLF ONCE AND FOR ALL
In my view, if we need more rigor on anything at this site, it would be in the enforcement of forum behaviour (already documented, no new "code" required)TALK TO SC. It seems like any thread here can turn on a dime, now, and simply blocking the Rant section is insufficient if one wants to just be conversing about photography. |
Thanks for your comments! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:03:26 PM · #117 |
if it's such an important concept - why does Ivo need the votes of the rest of the community to give him the go ahead ?
and if his gripe is with the way the challenge description led to the problem. there is no need of a code of ethics. just a refrain from challenge themes that don't have a means to be validated. a much simpler solution, and one i'm pretty sure is being discussed behind the scenes....
to use your/my coffee example again...
Originally posted by Ivo:
I think it was the chastising from people who blamed the entrant for spilling hot coffe on their challenge descriptions.
Could I be clearer? |
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 17:04:23.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:04:04 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by kleski:
I agree, once again it is digressing...just like last nights. SC Please lock this thread. |
You can all "lock" it yourselves if you just quit posting further responses. Why can't you all exercise some self-discipline instead of forcing us to act like parents function as dictators/censors? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:05:00 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by kleski:
I agree, once again it is digressing...just like last nights. SC Please lock this thread. |
Then please stay on topic and keep evil IVO out of it. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:09:51 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wow...
If it's so innocuous and irrelevant, why not let it happen and see what comes of it?
Surely you guys'd enjoy taking this apart more if you actually had some grist to chew on instead of just fragging the idealist of the concept. |
Jeb - that is not the issue. He can write any suggestions he wants but when the majority is saying they do not think we need this then maybe it is time to move on. My take is that many of us just do not think it is a useful idea; I'll go further and say I think it is a counterproductive idea in the long run. Those who are in favor of a "code' can continue to beat the drum but it is unlikely to gain traction. The one thing we do not need around here is more unenforceable rules that are not rules. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:13:34 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
These are not the ten commandments folks! God will not smite you! |
But I will. And I exist even if you don't believe in me. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:13:34 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
The one thing we do not need around here is more unenforceable rules that are not rules. |
Well said
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:21:10 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by soup:
if it's such an important concept - why does Ivo need the votes of the rest of the community to give him the go ahead ?
and if his gripe is with the way the challenge description led to the problem. there is no need of a code of ethics. just a refrain from challenge themes that don't have a means to be validated. a much simpler solution, and one i'm pretty sure is being discussed behind the scenes....
to use your/my coffee example again...
Originally posted by Ivo:
I think it was the chastising from people who blamed the entrant for spilling hot coffe on their challenge descriptions.
Could I be clearer? |
|
Fair assessment. Can this be made visible somewhere on the challenge submission page? The verbage MAY be something like this: "As an effort to encourage fair competition and the enjoyment of all participants, we request you adhere to specifics presented in the challenge description. In the event you are unclear of the description, please contact SC/forums for clarification".
Now pretend I didn't write this. Is this workable? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:28:07 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Can this be made visible somewhere on the challenge submission page? The verbage MAY be something like this: "As an effort to encourage fair competition and the enjoyment of all participants, we request you adhere to specifics presented in the challenge description. In the event you are unclear of the description, please contact SC/forums for clarification".
Now pretend I didn't write this. Is this workable? |
It is workable.
The point is that it is unlikely to change anything or do any good. More likely just another place for people to point to and complain that it is not enforceable. We are all adults and are making a conscious decision when we enter something that is not in the spirit of the challenge. It is highly unlikely that adding more verbiage to the site is going to change the fact that some will choose to ignore it and some will criticize them for it.
BTW - it is not an Ivo thing so stop trying to make it one.
Message edited by author 2009-11-18 17:29:45. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:28:58 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Ivo:
These are not the ten commandments folks! God will not smite you! |
But I will. And I exist even if you don't believe in me. |
 mk forgive me for I have sinned ......;-) |
|
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: 04/18/2024 08:52:06 AM EDT.
