| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2009 12:30:28 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me that, rather than agitate for a "code of ethics", which is a loaded topic if I've ever seen one, we ought to be requesting the inclusion of a line like that in the submission guidelines. Just for the record, ya know? I don't see why this should be an issue at all, that we somewhere in our rules state that it's a good idea to actually *follow* the guidelines when making submissions.
That's what this is all about.
R. |
I thought that was clearly implied, even with any lack of enforcement efforts. But perhaps not. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:31:20 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...In the voting rules, we are presented with the statement that we should "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust (our) score accordingly." But nowhere in the challenge submission rules are we instructed to "consider the challenge topic when submitting and be sure our submission responds to the topic of the given challenge."
...we ought to be requesting the inclusion of a line like that in the submission guidelines... I don't see why this should be an issue at all, that we somewhere in our rules state that it's a good idea to actually *follow* the guidelines when making submissions... |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I'd go further: the "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust (our) score accordingly" wording has spurred all kinds of uninformed intolerance and righteous prejudice over the years. It has, always and, IMO, unnecessarily infected both the voting process and discussions. The instruction is, as Bear rightly shows, more effectively directed at the submitting author of an image than at an unsuspecting public who may or may not have any sense of the context of an image submitted to a challenge. |
It still boils down to a mutually agreed sense of honor, though.
We should be able to count on each other not to deliberately flout the challenge guidelines on a photography site where there is really no gain to be had from doing so.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:33:53 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Scholten:
...I thought that was clearly implied, even with any lack of enforcement efforts. But perhaps not. |
Yes, but even bricks and telephone poles are too subtle for some of us. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:41:58 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me that, rather than agitate for a "code of ethics", which is a loaded topic if I've ever seen one, we ought to be requesting the inclusion of a line like that in the submission guidelines. Just for the record, ya know? I don't see why this should be an issue at all, that we somewhere in our rules state that it's a good idea to actually *follow* the guidelines when making submissions.
|
Amem to this. I had suggested something like this, only much stronger, in the locked thread (pasted below), but anything that broadens the use of DNMC is really a non-starter with most people. It is too bad, but I think at this point we may just have to live with the current DPC ruleset and start the countdown for the next "47 Step"-like episode.
"Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ."
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:50:08 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We should be able to count on each other not to deliberately flout the challenge guidelines on a photography site where there is really no gain to be had from doing so. |
And we SHOULD be able to count on each other to follow the challenge requirements, and on DPC’s leadership to help insure that we all do? |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:52:32 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
"Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ." |
The community already has trouble with what determines a new feature, artwork rules, etc...if those are subjectable, the above quote would be a nightmare! |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 12:59:59 PM · #182 |
Suggestions that we make "DNMC", in general, subject to review and DQ are, as ZZ is implying, rather draconian. Carried to extremes, this will produce even more of a take-no-risks, cookie-cutter mentality than we already have on this site.
In any event, the topic at hand in *this* thread is "code of ethics". As I said earlier, that's a loaded phrase, and it won't fly. But where's the harm in nudging people towards an understanding of the prevailing ethos of DPChallenge, which is something like "We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:10:29 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations." |
You silver-tongued devil, you!
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:12:39 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:15:49 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
"Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ." |
So using a garden hose in a Rain challenge would be a DQ, shooting a neighbor's dog for a Pet Portrait challenge that specifies your pet would be a DQ, entering a candid of someone who knows you're taking their picture would be DQ, etc.? No, thank you.
"The original idea behind the site was for it to be a place where the two of us and a couple of our friends could teach ourselves to be better photographers by giving each other a 'challenge' for the week." I believe we should enforce technical challenges where possible, but if you're expanding your comfort zone and trying new techniques by following the guidelines, then someone else's practical joke cannot take that away. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:19:15 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by raish:
How unethical is it to barge in on someone's thread and show off your own pictures?
 |
There should be a term for this. I think it should be called "whitebearding" a thread. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:23:16 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."... |
That's the spirit.
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 13:23:53. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:36:01 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by jmulvihill:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
I think Robert missed his calling! :-) Nicely written.  |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:40:00 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
Are you trying to bring a good rant thread back to reality? You should be banned. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:40:20 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jmulvihill:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
I think Robert missed his calling! :-) Nicely written. |
double ditto!
and this thread has been civil and polite for a while, now, too......... |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:42:17 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jmulvihill:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
I think Robert missed his calling! :-) Nicely written. |
Well, I've always earned part of my living as a writer and an editor, but thanks :-)
And in the meanwhile, how about we start a movement to get that sentence incoporated into the Challenge Submission Rules verbatim? Makes sense to me.
R. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:47:40 PM · #192 |
That is reasonable--doesn't keep someone from bending the rules or not playing fair but it is encouragement to do so. Good write Robert.
Now the thread can go another 20 pages dissecting terms like 'universal willingness' and 'good faith'. :) |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 01:49:53 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jmulvihill:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
I think Robert missed his calling! :-) Nicely written. |
Well, I've always earned part of my living as a writer and an editor, but thanks :-)
And in the meanwhile, how about we start a movement to get that sentence incoporated into the Challenge Submission Rules verbatim? Makes sense to me.
R. |
Excellent work Robert! I like the concept although I think the words may be adjusted to also communicate effectively to those who may not have English skills as strong as yours. Just a thought? :-)
[i]Statistics suggest that when customers complain, business owners and managers ought to get excited about it. The complaining customer represents a huge opportunity for more business. [/i Zig Ziglar |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:05:09 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by jmulvihill:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"We create challenges to test you as a photographer, and they depend for their success on a fairly universal willingness to accept the challenge in good faith and work within its limitations. We encourage all submitters to explore the amazing creativity that can derive from accepting, and working within, arbitrary limitations."
R. |
"thumbs up" - "like" - "aye" |
I think Robert missed his calling! :-) Nicely written. |
Well, I've always earned part of my living as a writer and an editor, but thanks :-)
And in the meanwhile, how about we start a movement to get that sentence incoporated into the Challenge Submission Rules verbatim? Makes sense to me.
R. |
Ask for a Poll?
:-))
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:11:48 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Ask for a Poll?
:-)) |
Maybe, though for me this falls in the category of something the owners might want to put in just on basic principles. I mean, how can you argue with that statement?
R. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:14:22 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Ask for a Poll?
:-)) |
Maybe, though for me this falls in the category of something the owners might want to put in just on basic principles. I mean, how can you argue with that statement?
R. |
There should be a rule that there must be a poll about whether to have a poll ..... there y'go no more polls. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:19:48 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So using a garden hose in a Rain challenge would be a DQ, shooting a neighbor's dog for a Pet Portrait challenge that specifies your pet would be a DQ, entering a candid of someone who knows you're taking their picture would be DQ, etc.? No, thank you.
|
No, but perhaps using a photo of the moon for a rain challenge, an automobile for a pet challenge (I almost said a rock!), and a building for a candid shot of a person, should be?
Are we not still talking about an intentional and obvious disregard for the clear instructions/requirements of the 47 Steps challenge, and the need to try to avoid letting that happen again? Or did I get lost somewhere?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:25:30 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Scholten:
No, but perhaps using a photo of the moon for a rain challenge, an automobile for a pet challenge (I almost said a rock!), and a building for a candid shot of a person, should be? |
Why? Instead of a DQ, some wit that wings it with a feather in a rock challenge is going to wind up light on the score. (Sorry.) |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 02:45:30 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bobnospum:
"Create new DQ rule that says that a) a deliberate intention to fool the voters into thinking you met the challenge or b) not using the technique/method/parameters in the challenge description will cause a DQ." |
So using a garden hose in a Rain challenge would be a DQ, shooting a neighbor's dog for a Pet Portrait challenge that specifies your pet would be a DQ, entering a candid of someone who knows you're taking their picture would be DQ, etc.? No, thank you.
|
You are in the SC and you have more insight into how hard/easy/confusing this all is. Your opinion carries more weight and I'd like to understand your thoughts better.
Challenge: Rain
Description: Take a photo during an "actual real rainstorm" to show that bad weather can still make good photos.
Problem: A ribbon winner uses a garden hose and admits he broke the spirit of the challenge but did it anyway since it was sunny all week where he lived.
I am not trying to cause trouble, but if I headed out in the rain, got soaked, took a great picture and lost a ribbon to a "garden hose shot", I'd probably not be happy.
Do you think it is a good thing for the site that this is legal under the current rules?
Do you think that we have to live with it being legal because the alternatives are much worse?
Do you think we should not have challenges like 47 Steps, 2 sec, 2AM, etc and just make it all go away?
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 14:49:54. |
|
|
|
11/19/2009 03:01:02 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
Challenge: Rain
Description: Take a photo during an "actual real rainstorm" to show that bad weather can still make good photos.
Problem: A ribbon winner uses a garden hose and admits he broke the spirit of the challenge but did it anyway since it was sunny all week where he lived. |
Bigger problem: people decide not to share information in the Photographer's Comments. The only concrete info available to us is EXIF data, and if the photographer doesn't say it was a hose, then what? What if he claims the comment was made in error (the garden hose approach was an earlier series and this one had actually been shot in the rain)? What if people completely disagree on the challenge criteria itself (I think a rhino is a wild animal, but you only think it's wild if it's IN the wild)? If people stop explaining their setups (even if sneaky), then we surely lose more than we gain by trying to prevent something that's utterly impossible to prevent.
If I took the trouble to go out and shoot in the rain, then I'd be proud of my effort and whatever result it earned. If someone else beats me with another approach, then I might consider it a Barry-Bonds-record-with-an-asterisk, but I'm not going to get upset over a virtual ribbon. There are enough real things to fight over that the virtual ones needn't add to the pile.
Message edited by author 2009-11-19 15:02:31. |
|
