DPR people are censuring more and more of my challenges

Please supply the facts. Do not embellish them. Do not present your opinion. Just the facts. Although it's important, do not include material from the NatGeog thing. Many of us have seen stuff like this, without the ability to respond. Best that can happen is that you are just like us.

abiquiuense

tony field said:

I have no idea why the powers at DPReview would find it inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the way the challenge was worded that DPR found inappropriate.

tony field said:

In my opinion these are precisely the type of cultural photographs that Standing would want in his challenge. They are beautiful representations of past and present culture. Superb!!

Standings previous challenge on portraits of ethnicities was well-received

I have no idea why the powers at DPReview would find it inappropriate.

Click to expand...

My opinion as to why, FWIW:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64386714

tony field said:

It becomes impossible to discuss issues with people who are always 100% correct by their own admission

Click to expand...

Actually it was by your admission, not mine :-D

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64249235

tony field said:

tony field wrote:

Of course he is more difficult since he is always 100% correct on everything!

Click to expand...

Since you haven't been able to post anything that proves what I have posted so far is not 100% accurate, that is a logical and reasonable conclusion for you to come to ;-)

Once again, as suggested a few entries back, could it have possibly been your wording? Maybe "Important People in My Life" or Interesting people. With three challenges cancelled by Admin, and allowing one to go through the judging process without a single entry suggests a need to adapt your way of doing things. Then there was the one on weapons with at least one entry being DQ'd because you hadn't anticipated pictures of large weapons shows maybe a lack of understanding of what has made you so popular over the last several years, because these problems are all recent. Personally, I'm looking forward to "Portraits of Policemen" opening in a few days. For the most part you are an excellent Challenge Host, but please take the time to consider all the feedback you've been getting.

I have no idea why you replied to me. I am not a challenge host. It is always worthwhile to be careful about your replies that should be directed to the appropriate person. If you don't it can become confusing.

Because everyone is entitled to reply to any post in public environments like this one.

Posts in these types of forums are not 1 on 1. That is what PM's are for. But I do PM's only with moderators or admins.

I always reply to the person I intend to.

David1961 said:

tony field said:

I have no idea why the powers at DPReview would find it inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the way the challenge was worded that DPR found inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a likely possibility. But I also think that the requirement to divulge information about oneself (in this instance the entering photographer's race/ethnicity) is problematic in a supposedly anonymous competition.

I haven't entered any of his/her challenges for a while because I feel that element (specifically - trying to find out some detail about the entrant) is always there.

David1961 said:

Because everyone is entitled to reply to any post in public environments like this one.

Posts in these types of forums are not 1 on 1. That is what PM's are for. But I do PM's only with moderators or admins.

I always reply to the person I intend to.

Click to expand...

But you are replying to Tony's comment to G Gordon...

This thread is getting confusing!

It's still very clear to me.

In any case I often see people replying to my and other people's posts that were not originally replied to them.

People often reply to my posts in which I replied to someone else, especially if they want to raise an issue with me.

I have no issue with that because threads in these types of forums are not 1 on 1 communications.

By standing on the Shoulders of Giants said:

On Sunday i opened a challenge called My People. The brief was to photograph an adult (someone knowing modelling for you) of the same race as yourself.

It was an open interpretation challenge, whereby an entrant could conform or challenge a stereotype of their people. For example, I hoped to see the friendly Irish, brave Scots, hardworking and polite Japanese, smiling Thais from the land of smiles. I was also hoping to see beyond the stereotypes. I wanted to see what minorities (like those tribal people in Asia or Africa) are like, presented through the lense of their own people.

The first entry was by a very good photographer RBFresno who entered a BW portrait of a late friend, Bill Adams, whom he met from DPR 13 years ago. Bill passed away 6 years ago, was a great person and was considered his "My People" for all his great traits and they just happened to share the same race.

Another shot was by Mitchmeister who entered a shot of a couple (probably him and his wife) with him wearing a tophat tux costume pushing a wheelbarrow. The title was something like "a little witty" and I thought it was a great shot to represent his people.

Next thing I know, I got a few comments saying they are not comfortable that my challenge focussed on race. The next morning I woke up and the challenge has again been pulled. This is probably the 3rd pulled challenge in a month and I'm really tired of DPR's wanton actions. It's disgracefully censuring people from expressing themselves with photographs just because some individuals chose to look at the dark side of a challenge theme and get offended.

There is no explanation from DPR people and I'm writing this post to tell the DPR community what's been going on and perhaps stop this wanton actions.

Click to expand...

Let us assume this was suggested this by an employee your work place which, as I assume you feel it is perfectly appropriate - and managers came to you at work and said , rightly or wrongly, a " this Race based Company Photo Contest " is making many people uncomfortable" and several have contemplating leaving the company.

What would your response be that Management as to what course of action they should take that also gives fair account of justice to those employees feeling aggrieved?

Could you word some " sample " Challenges you feel word be appropriately rejected and contrast why this one passes muster compared to those.

Thank you

--
Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

[No message]

David1961 said:

tony field said:

I have no idea why the powers at DPReview would find it inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the way the challenge was worded that DPR found inappropriate.

Click to expand...

I now suspect that this is right. Things have to be praised in politically correct ways that are suitable for the current American Social political situation. It is obvious that the administration of dpreview appears to be a strong subscriber is this position and prefers not to be sensitive to the international flavour of the people participating.

tony field said:

David1961 said:

tony field said:

I have no idea why the powers at DPReview would find it inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the way the challenge was worded that DPR found inappropriate.

Click to expand...

I now suspect that this is right. Things have to be praised in politically correct ways that are suitable for the current American Social political situation.

Click to expand...

That is obviously one opinion someone could choose to adopt.

tony field said:

It is obvious that the administration of dpreview appears to be a strong subscriber is this position and prefers not to be sensitive to the international flavour of the people participating.

Click to expand...

I don't know if DPR share your opinion or not but even if they do, that is obviously their right to adopt if they choose to.

This is their website and clearly they are fully entitled to run and administer it according to their values.

tony field said:

I now suspect that this is right. Things have to be praised in politically correct ways that are suitable for the current American Social political situation. It is obvious that the administration of dpreview appears to be a strong subscriber is this position and prefers not to be sensitive to the international flavour of the people participating.

Click to expand...

In my opinion that is just conjecture and nonsense as it has nothing to do with the "current American Social political situation" and seems like nothing but simple, basic common sense!

I am not American and completely agree with DPR's stance. Where I am critical it is for not doing enough concerning By Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants.

He/She once had the usernames ConanFuji and bizarrely at the same time ConanFujiX and was also a challenge host under these names. You can see one of his challenges here back from 2015

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=10543

Apparently, he/she was then banned but re-joined under their current name and managed somehow to become a challenge host again. If memory serves me correctly it may have been because RuthC mentioned this fact that he/she began their bullying campaign against her.

My criticisms of DPR are that:

• they have allowed someone who was once banned to host challenges. Allowing them to re-join is one thing but to be a challenge host is something else.
• they have allowed someone who regularly deletes comments in their challenges, not because the comments break any rules but because he/she doesn't like them, to continue to be a challenge host
• they have allowed someone who for years has been regularly and unnecessarily rude to people that they DQ to continue to be a challenge host (also preventing them for re-entering the challenge with a compliant image)

• they have allowed somebody who often submits questionable challenges to continue to host challenges.

On the topic of, at best, questionable challenges how did DPR allow a challenge like this?

Bill's Favourite Secretary

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11576

These are the comments that he/she haven't deleted (yet)



They have been quite a few of these 'questionable' ones.

Zika: Conceptual Challenge

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11600

Green Lives Matter : Make Yoda a Meal

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11532

At least now DPR appears to be putting in some checks and balances rather than let somebody who appears to me to be an unsavoury character continually abuse the authority they have given them.

I know some will stand up for and support By Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants (formerly known as ConanFuji/ConanFujiX) because he/she posts up lots of interesting challenges which allows them to show off their handy work. I too in the past have defended him/her or at least made allowances because of the many good challenges they have done but I remind myself that Harvey Weinstein produced some great movies; is that reason to ignore his obviously questionable behaviour?

Instead of complaining he/she should be counting their lucky stars that they haven't been removed from hosting challenges, I'm pretty sure if someone had a similar catalogue of behaviour at the organisation I used to work for that they would be out on their ear a long time ago.

DPR will be saving themselves future headaches, issues and problems by removing him or her from challenge hosting all together. Hopefully it's not similar to being a Supreme Court Judge; there for life.

David Omara said:

tony field said:

I now suspect that this is right. Things have to be praised in politically correct ways that are suitable for the current American Social political situation. It is obvious that the administration of dpreview appears to be a strong subscriber is this position and prefers not to be sensitive to the international flavour of the people participating.

Click to expand...

In my opinion that is just conjecture and nonsense as it has nothing to do with the "current American Social political situation" and seems like nothing but simple, basic common sense!

I am not American and completely agree with DPR's stance. Where I am critical it is for not doing enough concerning By Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants.

He/She once had the usernames ConanFuji and bizarrely at the same time ConanFujiX and was also a challenge host under these names. You can see one of his challenges here back from 2015

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=10543

Apparently, he/she was then banned but re-joined under their current name and managed somehow to become a challenge host again. If memory serves me correctly it may have been because RuthC mentioned this fact that he/she began their bullying campaign against her.

My criticisms of DPR are that:

• they have allowed someone who was once banned to host challenges. Allowing them to re-join is one thing but to be a challenge host is something else.
• they have allowed someone who regularly deletes comments in their challenges, not because they break any rules but because he/she doesn't like them, to continue to be a challenge host
• they have allowed someone who for years has been regularly and unnecessarily rude to people that they DQ to continue to be a challenge host (also preventing them for re-entering the challenge with a compliant image)

• they have allowed somebody who often submits questionable challenges to continue to host challenges.

On the topic of, at best, questionable challenges how did DPR allow a challenge like this?

Bill's Favourite Secretary

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11576

These are the comments that he/she haven't deleted (yet)



They have been quite a few of these 'questionable' ones.

Zika: Conceptual Challenge

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11600

Green Lives Matter : Make Yoda a Meal

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=11532

At least now DPR appears to be putting in some checks and balances rather than let somebody who appears to me to be an unsavoury character continually abuse the authority they have given them.

I know some will stand up for and support By Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants (formerly known as ConanFuji/ConanFujiX) because he posts up lots of interesting challenges which allows them to show off their handy work. I too in the past have defended him/her or at least made allowances because of the many good challenges they have done but I remind myself that Harvey Weinstein produced some great movies; is that reason to ignore his obviously questionable behaviour?

Instead of complaining he/she should be counting their lucky stars that they haven't been removed from hosting challenges, I'm pretty sure if someone had a similar catalogue of behaviour at the organisation I used to work for that they would be out on their ear a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Member Omara:

Did you have a legitimate expectancy of reemployment? Did you have procedural guarantees? In your "country," do you have an expectancy to be thought of as innocent first? Do they first exhaust all guarantees (if any,) before they rush to judgement?

Knowing what you "know" of "Stands, . . .," would you offer your advocacy?

Knowing what you know; would you still be able to follow the judge's instructions?

I remain yours,

abiquiuense

David Omara said:

DPR will be saving themselves future headaches, issues and problems by removing him or her from challenge hosting all together. Hopefully it's not similar to being a Supreme Court Judge; there for life.

Click to expand...

abiquiuense said:

Member Omara:

In your "country," do you have an expectancy to be thought of as innocent first? Do they first exhaust all guarantees (if any,) before they rush to judgement?

Click to expand...

This type of regulatory offense is known as a " strict liability" offense , a parking ticket is a good example - the concept of " inocent fist" does not attach to strict liability offenses in Western Law.

For a crime to be happen under western law this requires a mens rea - a guilty mind and the acteus reus - the phyisical act.

Regulatory offenses are much different - these do not rise to the level of crimes thus the government need only prove the act was done on a balance of probabilities - not beyond a reasonable doubt - intent and " innocence" as the law sees it - plays no part.

The judge will not accept - " I did not see the No Parking Sign - therefore I cannot have intent therefore I am not guilty of illegal parking. She or he is only concerned with a proof on a balance of probabilities that it is more likely ( > 51 %) than unlikely - that I parked illegally.

This proof threshold is significantly lower than our threshold for a crime which is:

" beyond a reasonable doubt" because in the later the government may have your liberty in jeopardy and they must prove the mens rea and actus reus.

Almost every municipal infraction / fine/penalty would be in this Strict Liability Offense category - they are everywhere - we just accept them as normal.

To all DPR members in this thread.

Some members have had, (or feel they have had) some "issues" with the OP, (or with other hosts), i.e not liking to be DQ, not liking the wording by the host or other matters. Ok, but those matters are however growing old, aren't they.

An old and well working way of taking care of things is to separate person and issue. In DPR that would basically mean that you look at new comments, threads, challenges i.e by all members in basically the same way. Not fretting about what the member or host has possibly written earlier, perhaps years ago. (Obvious, continuing trolling/flaming is a somewhat another matter, but then you just need to restrain from "feeding" the troll)

If some DPR member (for whatever reason) doesn't like some host or his/her challenges, what might a sensible "grown up" person do about it?

Will he start complaining, trying to have the challenge removed, and thus prevent other members from attending that challenge, OR, will he just ignore that host??? (i.e does only what you don't like or what you are "uncomfortable with" count, or does the views of other people also matter?)

Jahn

JahnG said:

Some members have had, (or feel they have had) some "issues" with the OP, (or with other hosts), i.e not liking to be DQ, not liking the wording by the host or other matters. Ok, but those matters are however growing old, aren't they.

An old and well working way of taking care of things is to separate person and issue. In DPR that would basically mean that you look at new comments, threads, challenges i.e by all members in basically the same way. Not fretting about what the member or host has possibly written earlier, perhaps years ago. (Obvious, continuing trolling/flaming is a somewhat another matter, but then you just need to restrain from "feeding" the troll)

If some DPR member (for whatever reason) doesn't like some host or his/her challenges, what might a sensible "grown up" person do about it?

Will he start complaining, trying to have the challenge removed, and thus prevent other members from attending that challenge, OR, will he just ignore that host??? (i.e does only your own preferences count, or does the views of other people also matter?)

Jahn

Click to expand...

The rules need only be explicit , clear and equally applied.

If a DQ can be made for arbitrarily, for any reason , without cause and without explanation the so be it.

It just has to be clearly stated by the Host that this is the standard of justice to be applied. It is people NOT knowing where they stand in relation to the rules that naturally gives rise to the friction

The issue here is one set of rules for some on DQ and another set for others - as such a consistent standard of justice is lacking.

Most people , for good or ill, expect a consistent standard of justice in life's affairs.

At work, at home and socially. DPR is no exception.

IMHO the solution is simple : nemo judex in re sua

No person shall judge their own case, Challenges must be moved a 3rd Party administrator who has no psychological, emotional, digital or real dog in the fight.

It is selective and arbitrary justice that rouses men's spirits the most , this is the story of history generally and this Challenge Malaise - this brouhaha is no exception.

Rodger in Edmonton said:

Rodger in Edmonton said:

Member Omara:

In your "country," do you have an expectancy to be thought of as innocent first? Do they first exhaust all guarantees (if any,) before they rush to judgement?

Click to expand...

This type of regulatory offense is known as a " strict liability" offense , a parking ticket is a good example - the concept of " inocent fist" does not attach to strict liability offenses in Western Law.

For a crime to be happen under western law this requires a mens rea - a guilty mind and the acteus reus - the phyisical act.

Regulatory offenses are much different - these do not rise to the level of crimes thus the government need only prove the act was done on a balance of probabilities - not beyond a reasonable doubt - intent and " innocence" as the law sees it - plays no part.

The judge will not accept - " I did not see the No Parking Sign - therefore I cannot have intent therefore I am not guilty of illegal parking. She or he is only concerned with a proof on a balance of probabilities that it is more likely ( > 51 %) than unlikely - that I parked illegally.

This proof threshold is significantly lower than our threshold for a crime which is:

" beyond a reasonable doubt" because in the later the government may have your liberty in jeopardy and they must prove the mens rea and actus reus.

Almost every municipal infraction / fine/penalty would be in this Strict Liability Offense category - they are everywhere - we just accept them as normal.

Click to expand...

Can we then leave the public guarantees and discuss the grievance within the private setting?

To which extent are decisions from dPR appealable?