DPC - CODE OF ETHICS? - DPChallenge Forums

11/19/2009 03:12:42 PM · #201

Originally posted by Louis:

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.)

Okay... I can see giving a low score on entries that don't follow the challenge requirements or spirit (Is that okay to do?) or entries that look like they could be Nuzzer's.

citymars

11/19/2009 03:16:45 PM · #202

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.

Very good point.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/19/2009 03:20:26 PM · #203

Okay, had some time to think of some solutions and have come up with some ideas which may work quite well. Of course, please offer input and insights, adjustments, etc, etc etc.

The web is a funny place that thrives on anonymity. This anonymity somewhat enables many to conduct themselves in a manner which may be in stark contrast to their real world personas. Although some may easily identify and transition between web and reality, others may struggle and haphazardly interlace the values of both personas. This is where, I believe, conflicts arise between virtual values and real world values.

There appears to be an anxiety associated with the design of a mechanism which will effectively communicate communal values and not stifle the freedoms unique to the virtual world. Here are my ideas

This part below is a standard for all the scenarios I'll present:

First, the community creates a very generalized and welcoming statement introducing DPC, the global diversity, encouraging creativity, communication, etc, etc.

Second, the community identifies and lists "meaningful intangibles" which have been repeatedly brought up. For example, adhering to challenge descriptions, how to vote, bag headed voting, commenting on images, communication during challenges, etc etc etc. The list is big or small but the issues MUST be isolated and articulated clearly.

Now, how do we handle this information? This is where we have to be clever and careful IMO.

My 3 potential solutions are as follows:

1) Agree upon a general statement regarding each "meaningful intangible" and categorize/catalog the statements under a community menu subheading.

2) Post a "meaningful intangible" much like and image is posted in a challenge and allow members to comment either anonymously or not. For an example, look at the format used for a challenge entry and there you go.

3) Vote on the importance of a "meaningful intangible" on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 is least important and 10 is most. This maintains annonymity and allows graphing much in the same manner as we see voting patterns after the challenge is over.

All of these ideas function to access a communal sentiment regarding various issues that arise. The data is used as a reference for evryone to pop in and see what the community thinks and then make their own decision based upon the poll.

It is non judgmental and offers greater clarity on many "value" issues which arise over and over again.

Lastly, it employs current site functionality therefore making the setup quite reasonable.

Thoughts?

BTW: These are generalized frameworks and can be clarified upon request.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/19/2009 03:23:49 PM · #204

Originally posted by scalvert:

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...

...I'd consider them more clever than me, no matter how wet I got. And I think the danger of people no longer sharing their setups, among other things, for fear of offending an arbitrary ethical standard that has no impact on the actual rules is very real.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

11/19/2009 03:27:12 PM · #205

I think Bear's wording addresses the issue extremely well, and closes this issue.

3DsArcher

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/19/2009 03:28:16 PM · #206

Originally posted by chromeydome:

I think Bear's wording addresses the issue extremely well, and closes this issue.

I'm with you on that one

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens for Sony

11/19/2009 03:32:00 PM · #207

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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.

Very good point.

Nuzzer didn't explain his setup.

Even if it is utterly impossible, what would be wrong with trying to minimize it?

bobnospum

Sony Alpha a77 II

11/19/2009 04:11:04 PM · #208

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.

Thanks, that is good enough for me.

3DsArcher

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

11/19/2009 04:13:20 PM · #209

Originally posted by Scholten:

Okay... I can see giving a low score on entries that look like they could be Nuzzer's.

I am curious to know how you would arrive at that conclusion that the image in front of you in voting could indeed be Nuzzers. All entries are anonymous. Does this then mean that you will troll vote any & all entries that contain images of water,young children,landscapes, HDR, birds, insects, cats, pregnant women, photos taken in other countries or the lowest of the low; a beach scene just on the off chance that you might just deliver a low vote to the person that ticks you off at the moment?

kleski

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/19/2009 04:16:51 PM · #210

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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...

...I'd consider them more clever than me, no matter how wet I got. And I think the danger of people no longer sharing their setups, among other things, for fear of offending an arbitrary ethical standard that has no impact on the actual rules is very real.

This is one of the major reasons I am on this site, learning new methods and seeing new concepts. Restricting challenges to the nth degree or adding rules and limitations to creativity is not the answer.

Bear is on target with his statement. I just hope some people don't use that as another tool to attack someones creativity...

citymars

11/19/2009 04:18:05 PM · #211

Originally posted by 3DsArcher:

Originally posted by Scholten:
Okay... I can see giving a low score on entries that look like they could be Nuzzer's.

I am curious to know ...

I think Scholten was making a joke with that remark. I hope so!

11/19/2009 04:19:49 PM · #212

Freakin heack. This place should be called ADDchallenge

Stay on topic please or go do the "10 paces, turn, and fire" 27 steps fro this thread!!

Those who say "lock this thread" really can place it on ignore. That simple. BUT, you know you gotta keep lookin and lookin and swoopin and lookin .........

Bwahahahaa

Anyhow, where were we? (Scratches nails across chalkboard)

citymars

11/19/2009 04:23:40 PM · #213

Larches are conifers in the genus Larix, in the family Pinaceae. They are native to much of the cooler temperate northern hemisphere, on lowlands in the far north, and high on mountains further south. Larches are among the dominant plants in the immense boreal forests of Russia and Canada.

Larch cones are erect, small, 1-9 cm long, green or purple, ripening brown 5-8 months after pollination; in about half the species the bract scales are long and visible, and in the others, short and hidden between the seed scales. Those native to northern regions have small cones (1-3 cm) with short bracts, with more southerly species tending to have longer cones (3-9 cm), often with exserted bracts, with the longest cones and bracts produced by the southernmost species, in the Himalaya.

Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

11/19/2009 04:24:45 PM · #214

It is personal huh? ;-)

3DsArcher

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/19/2009 04:26:55 PM · #215

Originally posted by citymars:

You make a very good point & I hear what your saying but I think the real question is here is who is Rose?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/19/2009 04:34:46 PM · #216

Okay, I have accomplished what I intended to do in this thread. I kept the issue alive, generated a flurry of attention and offered a resolve. Nothing more to do so ........ I'm done here!!!

Now leave me alone!!!

Mwahahahaa

frisca

Nikon D70

11/19/2009 05:02:21 PM · #217

You know, Ivo, I was supportive of your efforts because I thought you had genuine interest in mind and wanted to come up with a solution to a problem, but I can see from your last few posts especially that you want none of that. You want your way or the highway. This thread came up with a GREAT solution to the problem, but you ignore that ask that they "stay on topic" (really? Bear_Music wasn't on topic??), insult people and now claim "you've done what you came to do?" I have lost much respect for you.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

11/19/2009 05:06:43 PM · #218

You never had respect for me!

NONE OF YOU EVER DID!!!!!

My thread has been hijacked by LARCHES!! There are not even real evergreens!!

Please Please Please, spare me the humiliation and lock this thread!!

Frisca can we talk about this over coffee some time? ;-)

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/19/2009 05:20:27 PM · #219

Larching towards Bethlehem to be born?

R.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/19/2009 05:21:54 PM · #220

how do you know whether anyone here has respect for you or not ? to some degree just taking part in this thread is a sign of respect - but that damn ADD keeps you from realizing it....

and you obviously missed the point with the link i posted a few pages back.

i'll let you figure it out. don't forget to look....

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/19/2009 05:30:08 PM · #221

Please stay quiet, I am pouting here!!

And watching "Days of our Lives". That Stefano guy ....... hmmm

soup

Canon EOS-30D

11/19/2009 05:34:21 PM · #222

actually, i think there are real evergreens.

Originally posted by Ivo:

There are not even real evergreens!!

i'm merely using the same thread tactics you seem to enjoy employing to both miss the point, and create some illusionary point of your own.......

rider

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM

11/19/2009 05:35:49 PM · #223

this is the problem with the world today---everyone thinks you can regulate stupidity, and the only way to do that is shoot every one with an i q under 150

11/19/2009 05:55:24 PM · #224

Originally posted by 3DsArcher:

Originally posted by Scholten:
Okay... I can see giving a low score on entries that look like they could be Nuzzer's.

I am curious to know how you would arrive at that conclusion that the image in front of you in voting could indeed be Nuzzers. All entries are anonymous. Does this then mean that you will troll vote any & all entries that contain images of water,young children,landscapes, HDR, birds, insects, cats, pregnant women, photos taken in other countries or the lowest of the low; a beach scene just on the off chance that you might just deliver a low vote to the person that ticks you off at the moment?

Right, unless his 47 Steps entry is DQ'd... or 47 Steps are taken to prevent that sort of dishonesty. Or maybe 48. 49 would be expecting too much, I suppose.