Suggested rules of conduct

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
  1. tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

tony field wrote:

You have stated that this is very easy. Take your 20 minutes and prove it for 6 accounts.

That is one of the most stupidest posts I have seen here

Maybe I should apologize for my apparent stupidity

That is up to you but thank you for accepting it was a stupid post.

First, I am no more accountable to you than you are to me.

You apparently feel that tasad should be held accountable however you cannot be accountable for your assertion

If the tasad's assertion is used to make an unconditional accusation of cheating, then yes.

I am not making any accusations.

Second, you are asking me to break DPR rules which makes you look like a total fool in my eyes.

I have no interest in whether anonymous people like you believe it would take some people 20 minutes or not.

If you are unable to do it in 20 minutes, I have no issue with that.

You are the one that made the at least twice All I'm doing is challenging you to prove your point with your apparent skill on the internet. You should be able to do it with impunity since it is according to you it is very easy. Or is your claim simply for verbal argument with no meaning and without substance.

As I posted earlier it is of no interest to me if you believe me or not because I haven't made any accusation.

If you believe it is impossible to do it in 20 minutes I have no issue with that.

Have you asked the admins for permission to ask another member to break a DPR rule to create multiple accounts?

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
tony field Forum Pro • Posts: 11,072
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
8

David1961 wrote:

  1. tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

tony field wrote:

You have stated that this is very easy. Take your 20 minutes and prove it for 6 accounts.

That is one of the most stupidest posts I have seen here

Maybe I should apologize for my apparent stupidity

That is up to you but thank you for accepting it was a stupid post.

I never said I accepted that. it's only your misinterpretation

First, I am no more accountable to you than you are to me.

You apparently feel that tasad should be held accountable however you cannot be accountable for your assertion

If the tasad's assertion is used to make an unconditional accusation of cheating, then yes.

I am not making any accusations.

You simply make assertions which you think do not have accountability

Second, you are asking me to break DPR rules which makes you look like a total fool in my eyes.

I have no interest in whether anonymous people like you believe it would take some people 20 minutes or not.

If you are unable to do it in 20 minutes, I have no issue with that.

You are the one that made the at least twice All I'm doing is challenging you to prove your point with your apparent skill on the internet. You should be able to do it with impunity since it is according to you it is very easy. Or is your claim simply for verbal argument with no meaning and without substance.

As I posted earlier it is of no interest to me if you believe me or not because I haven't made any accusation.

If you believe it is impossible to do it in 20 minutes I have no issue with that.

Have you asked the admins for permission to ask another member to break a DPR rule to create multiple accounts?

Excellent redirection and avoidance since you do not wish any direct commitment to anything

-- hide signature --

Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

  1. tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

tony field wrote:

You have stated that this is very easy. Take your 20 minutes and prove it for 6 accounts.

That is one of the most stupidest posts I have seen here

Maybe I should apologize for my apparent stupidity

That is up to you but thank you for accepting it was a stupid post.

I never said I accepted that. it's only your misinterpretation

First, I am no more accountable to you than you are to me.

You apparently feel that tasad should be held accountable however you cannot be accountable for your assertion

If the tasad's assertion is used to make an unconditional accusation of cheating, then yes.

I am not making any accusations.

You simply make assertions which you think do not have accountability

Second, you are asking me to break DPR rules which makes you look like a total fool in my eyes.

I have no interest in whether anonymous people like you believe it would take some people 20 minutes or not.

If you are unable to do it in 20 minutes, I have no issue with that.

You are the one that made the at least twice All I'm doing is challenging you to prove your point with your apparent skill on the internet. You should be able to do it with impunity since it is according to you it is very easy. Or is your claim simply for verbal argument with no meaning and without substance.

As I posted earlier it is of no interest to me if you believe me or not because I haven't made any accusation.

If you believe it is impossible to do it in 20 minutes I have no issue with that.

Have you asked the admins for permission to ask another member to break a DPR rule to create multiple accounts?

Excellent redirection and avoidance since you do not wish any direct commitment to anything

Tony - I don't think it is reasonable to expect David1961 to create a set of DPR accounts to prove it is possible to do so. This amounts to encouraging him to break forum rules and any admin spotting it would be duty bound to delete those accounts and permanently ban David1961's account.

It seems fair in this case to accept that it is possible to do so. Anyone can create an account in any available name on Gmail or any number of other e-mail platforms (I know because I have created various accounts for my personal e-mail, for a photo website I used to have, for a couple of volunteer offices I hold in any charitable organisations). I haven't done this for a while, but assume the rules haven't changed. You can then use that e-mail to create an account on DPR. You can theoretically do this multiple times in a few minutes. As I wrote elsewhere, I have had a few previous accounts on DPR that were banned and know it is easy to create a new one afterwards (which is quite within the rules, providing you don't do multiples of course).

Having said that, I don't think there is anyone operating multiple accounts to give tasad and supporters thumbs up in this forum. It is possible, but very unlikely. I don't doubt there are multiple accounts running in other parts of DPR.

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Canon EOS 550D Sony Alpha NEX-6 Fujifilm X-T1 +13 more
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Bill Thoo wrote:

Lensmate wrote:

tony field wrote:

New Day Rising wrote:

Hawk Eyes OvO wrote:

Bill Thoo wrote:

I'll stress the following is only an analogy, as it will sound pretentious, and as I have said before this discussion is an extremely first world problem.

... Definitely.

I love that this is a fairly down to earth discussion. (so far)

Not sure we are getting both sides of the table here though. It seems the 'likes' mentioned before are not in any way translating to well articulated counter-arguments.

I agree with you that the witch hunting needs to stop, but I also think that what we have here is a very one-sided debate. Do we need to ask for some sort of representative to step forward or something?

The other side is essentially led by tasad - tasad does all the investigations and doxing. He has a group of loyal supporters who consider him above criticism.

The basic problem is that on one side you have all the suggested rule changes and detailed analysis of the problems with tasad's methods (if you missed them, these were set out across multiple posts in a couple of now deleted there).

On the other side, you have tasad basically saying (in the thread titled "A few") "I don't care what anyone says, I have no intention of changing anything about what I do". You then have his followers basically saying, "tasad is right and anyone who doesn't agree is a sociopath who loves cheaters. End of discussion".

I think you have got your analysis wrong in this case and is a biased description to suit your predilections for argument as you described yourself in the "A few" thread.

Tasad carefully presents images and Analysis of what he considers to be very anomalous for normal challenge postings.

I suspect there are 2 questions that have to be asked

  1. Is the technical identification images in question accurate? For example is the date analysis image exif information related to challenges with date restrictions technically correct? For images that appear to have multiple owners in the sense of the same image appearing in more than one Internet location are technically correct? By this I mean: do you evaluate the image as being identical.
  2. Do you agree or disagree with tasad's analysis that the images probably constitute cheating in the context of the challenge rules for all cases presented.

Discussing this topic with these chappies is a complete waste of time Tony [even though you mean well]

They love to cherry pick and relent with specious comments that are intended to bait instead of discuss. If you say white, they will say black....you say black, they will say white.

Short of DNA and video footage, they will never come to reason because they are treating it like a court of law case....

-Martin P

But this is the issue that some of us have with Tasad's accusations. The rules lawyers are checking every single entrant for breaking challenge rules. Is that a problem? Absolutely not.

But if you are going play this game of being super correct about rules, then play it fully and play it fair. If you make an accusation, prove it. Don't show me the same photo or camera in different accounts - prove the same person owns those accounts and took those photos. And then prove this violated a rule (eg. concurrent multiple accounts).

Otherwise it really does look like rules lawyering, but a shonky one.

There is another dimension to this for me.

We know tasad has a group of very loyal supporters here in this forum, who accept what he posts apparently without question. That is fine up to a point. What it does mean though is that if tasad publicly declares someone to be operating multiple accounts, it won't really matter what explanation they come back with, it is exceedingly unlikely they will get a fair hearing. Effectively the case is determined and concluded without the accused having a chance to respond to the accusations.

I can state with absolute truth that my wife has posted my photos in her social media accounts, that I have shared my camera body with my daughter on outings, that she and a friend have used one or more of my cameras on their own outings, and that I have given away cameras and lenses to friends and relatives. Just within my own personal experience it is entirely possible to the see photos from the exact same camera posted all over the internet under different names. But if they were discovered by tasad and I was accused in this forum, is there any real chance my explanation would be given a fair hearing?

I think this was clearly demonstrated in the Mr Scorpio case. It is also demonstrated by responses along the lines of "Discussing this topic with these chappies is a complete waste of time", and "I completely agree and consider this thread now closed".

I still maintain that is also a problem when the accusations are not actually about cheating and rely on long deleted or inactive accounts.

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Canon EOS 550D Sony Alpha NEX-6 Fujifilm X-T1 +13 more
OP Bill Thoo Regular Member • Posts: 314
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

New Day Rising wrote:

Bill Thoo wrote:

Lensmate wrote:

tony field wrote:

New Day Rising wrote:

Hawk Eyes OvO wrote:

Bill Thoo wrote:

I'll stress the following is only an analogy, as it will sound pretentious, and as I have said before this discussion is an extremely first world problem.

... Definitely.

I love that this is a fairly down to earth discussion. (so far)

Not sure we are getting both sides of the table here though. It seems the 'likes' mentioned before are not in any way translating to well articulated counter-arguments.

I agree with you that the witch hunting needs to stop, but I also think that what we have here is a very one-sided debate. Do we need to ask for some sort of representative to step forward or something?

The other side is essentially led by tasad - tasad does all the investigations and doxing. He has a group of loyal supporters who consider him above criticism.

The basic problem is that on one side you have all the suggested rule changes and detailed analysis of the problems with tasad's methods (if you missed them, these were set out across multiple posts in a couple of now deleted there).

On the other side, you have tasad basically saying (in the thread titled "A few") "I don't care what anyone says, I have no intention of changing anything about what I do". You then have his followers basically saying, "tasad is right and anyone who doesn't agree is a sociopath who loves cheaters. End of discussion".

I think you have got your analysis wrong in this case and is a biased description to suit your predilections for argument as you described yourself in the "A few" thread.

Tasad carefully presents images and Analysis of what he considers to be very anomalous for normal challenge postings.

I suspect there are 2 questions that have to be asked

  1. Is the technical identification images in question accurate? For example is the date analysis image exif information related to challenges with date restrictions technically correct? For images that appear to have multiple owners in the sense of the same image appearing in more than one Internet location are technically correct? By this I mean: do you evaluate the image as being identical.
  2. Do you agree or disagree with tasad's analysis that the images probably constitute cheating in the context of the challenge rules for all cases presented.

Discussing this topic with these chappies is a complete waste of time Tony [even though you mean well]

They love to cherry pick and relent with specious comments that are intended to bait instead of discuss. If you say white, they will say black....you say black, they will say white.

Short of DNA and video footage, they will never come to reason because they are treating it like a court of law case....

-Martin P

But this is the issue that some of us have with Tasad's accusations. The rules lawyers are checking every single entrant for breaking challenge rules. Is that a problem? Absolutely not.

But if you are going play this game of being super correct about rules, then play it fully and play it fair. If you make an accusation, prove it. Don't show me the same photo or camera in different accounts - prove the same person owns those accounts and took those photos. And then prove this violated a rule (eg. concurrent multiple accounts).

Otherwise it really does look like rules lawyering, but a shonky one.

There is another dimension to this for me.

We know tasad has a group of very loyal supporters here in this forum, who accept what he posts apparently without question. That is fine up to a point. What it does mean though is that if tasad publicly declares someone to be operating multiple accounts, it won't really matter what explanation they come back with, it is exceedingly unlikely they will get a fair hearing. Effectively the case is determined and concluded without the accused having a chance to respond to the accusations.

I can state with absolute truth that my wife has posted my photos in her social media accounts, that I have shared my camera body with my daughter on outings, that she and a friend have used one or more of my cameras on their own outings, and that I have given away cameras and lenses to friends and relatives. Just within my own personal experience it is entirely possible to the see photos from the exact same camera posted all over the internet under different names. But if they were discovered by tasad and I was accused in this forum, is there any real chance my explanation would be given a fair hearing?

I think this was clearly demonstrated in the Mr Scorpio case. It is also demonstrated by responses along the lines of "Discussing this topic with these chappies is a complete waste of time", and "I completely agree and consider this thread now closed".

I still maintain that is also a problem when the accusations are not actually about cheating and rely on long deleted or inactive accounts.

Yes, I agree.  We both believe that the level of evidence being provided by Tasad in his accusations are insufficient for him to say he is correct in his accusations.  And I haven't even addressed the issue you raised of being accused of what?

 Bill Thoo's gear list:Bill Thoo's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon PowerShot D10 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC +2 more
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
  • tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

  1. tony field wrote:

David1961 wrote:

tony field wrote:

You have stated that this is very easy. Take your 20 minutes and prove it for 6 accounts.

That is one of the most stupidest posts I have seen here

Maybe I should apologize for my apparent stupidity

That is up to you but thank you for accepting it was a stupid post.

I never said I accepted that. it's only your misinterpretation

First, I am no more accountable to you than you are to me.

You apparently feel that tasad should be held accountable however you cannot be accountable for your assertion

If the tasad's assertion is used to make an unconditional accusation of cheating, then yes.

I am not making any accusations.

You simply make assertions which you think do not have accountability

I am not under obligation to prove it can be done in 20 minutes because I am not using it to support any accusation.

If I was using it to support an accusation then of course I would be under obligation to prove my evidence is true.

Second, you are asking me to break DPR rules which makes you look like a total fool in my eyes.

I have no interest in whether anonymous people like you believe it would take some people 20 minutes or not.

If you are unable to do it in 20 minutes, I have no issue with that.

You are the one that made the at least twice All I'm doing is challenging you to prove your point with your apparent skill on the internet. You should be able to do it with impunity since it is according to you it is very easy. Or is your claim simply for verbal argument with no meaning and without substance.

As I posted earlier it is of no interest to me if you believe me or not because I haven't made any accusation.

If you believe it is impossible to do it in 20 minutes I have no issue with that.

Have you asked the admins for permission to ask another member to break a DPR rule to create multiple accounts?

Excellent redirection and avoidance since you do not wish any direct commitment to anything

I am committed to questioning unsubstantiated accusations and assumptions from anyone.

I very much doubt DPR will give permission to anyone to demonstrate how quickly they can create multiple accounts because creating multiple accounts is clearly and rightfully against DPR rules.

You should take everyone not being allowed to demonstrate how quickly they can set up DPR accounts up with the admins if you feel members should be allowed to do so and you are genuinely interested.

I am pretty sure I know what their reaction to you will be

Asking members to prove how quickly they can create DPR accounts is the same as members asking you to prove all the images in your DPR gallery are actually yours.

Do you really want to take other members down that path ?

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

New Day Rising wrote:

Tony - I don't think it is reasonable to expect David1961 to create a set of DPR accounts to prove it is possible to do so. This amounts to encouraging him to break forum rules and any admin spotting it would be duty bound to delete those accounts and permanently ban David1961's account.

I suspect many members will see this as a childish, immature and weak attempt at entrapment by Tony

It seems fair in this case to accept that it is possible to do so. Anyone can create an account in any available name on Gmail or any number of other e-mail platforms (I know because I have created various accounts for my personal e-mail, for a photo website I used to have, for a couple of volunteer offices I hold in any charitable organisations). I haven't done this for a while, but assume the rules haven't changed. You can then use that e-mail to create an account on DPR. You can theoretically do this multiple times in a few minutes. As I wrote elsewhere, I have had a few previous accounts on DPR that were banned and know it is easy to create a new one afterwards (which is quite within the rules, providing you don't do multiples of course).

Having said that, I don't think there is anyone operating multiple accounts to give tasad and supporters thumbs up in this forum. It is possible, but very unlikely. I don't doubt there are multiple accounts running in other parts of DPR.

Another significant difference here is that I am not trying to change anyone's opinions or asking them to believe what I post.

If Tony chooses to not believe me I have no issue with that.

The flip side is that tasad is asking everyone to accept what he posts as being 100% accurate and it appears that he and at least some of his supporters seem to struggle to cope with anyone questioning his accusations which are based on assumptions.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
5

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
4

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
4

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
Decisive Comment
Decisive Comment Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
3

Ultimately this is something DPR ought to remedy with some (probably) simple updates to the challenges platform -- not a time consuming overhaul, just little things to aid hosts. In a thread that I think was deleted, tasad wrote something critical of hosts, to the effect that "If a host isn't weeding out the cheaters, s/he isn't doing their job" (meaning, amusingly, that he criticized hosts who post here and thank him for doing their job).

I just uploaded a test photo to a challenge and changed the capture date manually. Why this is an always-editable field I don't know. Why keep it editable if the capture date is already extracted from the entry's exif?

If for whatever reason the image has no exif data, then sure, allow the entrant to enter a date... in this case, flag the image with some kind of 'alert' icon or note so that the host can immediately see that the image had a manually entered capture date (unless the challenge has no date restrictions in which case who cares). The host can then proceed to handle things however they wish.

Not allowing manual dates screws only the dumb cheaters obviously but it's at least something.

Another thing could be to let hosts see partial IP addresses of entrants and voters. Did Joey Clicker and Jimmy Snapper enter images from the same IP? Did Joey and Jimmy give 5 stars to each other's entries? For extra benefit, something like a "possible duplicate accounts" button could be displayed for hosts to alert DPR admins.

Little things to alleviate unnecessary big things.

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Decisive Comment wrote:

Ultimately this is something DPR ought to remedy with some (probably) simple updates to the challenges platform -- not a time consuming overhaul, just little things to aid hosts. In a thread that I think was deleted, tasad wrote something critical of hosts, to the effect that "If a host isn't weeding out the cheaters, s/he isn't doing their job" (meaning, amusingly, that he criticized hosts who post here and thank him for doing their job).

DPR make it very clear that weeding out cheaters is not a role of challenge hosts, so tasad would be posting his opinion at best of what he believes a host's role should be.

At https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/BecomeHost.aspx#what_does_a_challenge_host_do

DPR list the roles for hosts:

"The contents of a challenge host's to-do list varies throughout their challenge's life-cycle. During the preperation phase the host will:

1. Decide title & theme
2. Write the challenge rules.
3. Pick the start date.
4. Specifiy entry limits (overall and per-entrant).

The challenge is then announced and the challenge host can take it easy in the days before submissions open. However, once entries start flooding in (and until the end of the voting phase) the host needs to review any complaints made against submitted images.

1. Review complaints
2. Disqualify entries (pro-actively and/or in response to complaints)"

Challenge hosts are volunteers and so forcing them to spend time and resources weeding out cheats is not appropriate. If hosts were paid for their time then maybe then adding weeding out cheats could be added to their role.

I just uploaded a test photo to a challenge and changed the capture date manually. Why this is an always-editable field I don't know. Why keep it editable if the capture date is already extracted from the entry's exif?

If for whatever reason the image has no exif data, then sure, allow the entrant to enter a date... in this case, flag the image with some kind of 'alert' icon or note so that the host can immediately see that the image had a manually entered capture date (unless the challenge has no date restrictions in which case who cares). The host can then proceed to handle things however they wish.

Not allowing manual dates screws only the dumb cheaters obviously but it's at least something.

Exif data on its own is useless for verifying when a photo was taken because it can very easily be replaced deliberately or even inadvertently.

One quick and simple example, when replacing a sky in an image using Photoshop Elements, depending on how you do it, the final edited image could very easily end up with exif data from the image containing the sky.

Another thing could be to let hosts see partial IP addresses of entrants and voters. Did Joey Clicker and Jimmy Snapper enter images from the same IP?

IP addresses don't really prove anything if a member uses a VPN because they can hide behind an IP address from just about anywhere on the planet and change their IP address every time they log on if they like.

Did Joey and Jimmy give 5 stars to each other's entries? For extra benefit, something like a "possible duplicate accounts" button could be displayed for hosts to alert DPR admins.

Little things to alleviate unnecessary big things.

Maybe, maybe not.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
embie
embie Senior Member • Posts: 2,219
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)
7

n/t

-- hide signature --

"Travel is fatal...for prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" (Mark Twain) - "The world...is our home" (eMBie)
You can edit and repost my pictures until you drop but they will still be mine Please respect my copyright

 embie's gear list:embie's gear list
Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Olympus TG-5 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)

Thank you for your opinion.

And I see you are still unable to post anything that proves what I have posted is not 100% accurate.

I am happy to see you are still enjoying this (as you posted yesterday) as much as I am

Let's see what "evidence" tasad comes up with to support his assumptions the next time he unconditionally accuses someone of cheating

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
embie
embie Senior Member • Posts: 2,219
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)
10

David1961 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion.

And I see you are still unable to post anything that proves what I have posted is not 100% accurate.

I am happy to see you are still enjoying this (as you posted yesterday) as much as I am

Time will prove it, notice my words, although, now potential cheaters are alarmed and drop out, job done, mission accomplished than.

eMBie

-- hide signature --

"Travel is fatal...for prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" (Mark Twain) - "The world...is our home" (eMBie)
You can edit and repost my pictures until you drop but they will still be mine Please respect my copyright

 embie's gear list:embie's gear list
Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Olympus TG-5 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)
1

embie wrote:

David1961 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion.

And I see you are still unable to post anything that proves what I have posted is not 100% accurate.

I am happy to see you are still enjoying this (as you posted yesterday) as much as I am

Time will prove it, notice my words, although, now potential cheaters are alarmed and drop out, job done, mission accomplished than.

I hope you are right. I don't see anyone here condoning cheating.

But the "smart" cheaters who know what they are doing when replacing exif data and hiding their real IP address will most probably continue undetected.

Tasad can only hope to catch the dumb cheaters who can't even cheat properly.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
Decisive Comment
Decisive Comment Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

David1961 wrote:

Decisive Comment wrote:

Ultimately this is something DPR ought to remedy with some (probably) simple updates to the challenges platform -- not a time consuming overhaul, just little things to aid hosts. In a thread that I think was deleted, tasad wrote something critical of hosts, to the effect that "If a host isn't weeding out the cheaters, s/he isn't doing their job" (meaning, amusingly, that he criticized hosts who post here and thank him for doing their job).

DPR make it very clear that weeding out cheaters is not a role of challenge hosts, so tasad would be posting his opinion at best of what he believes a host's role should be.

At https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/BecomeHost.aspx#what_does_a_challenge_host_do

DPR list the roles for hosts:

"The contents of a challenge host's to-do list varies throughout their challenge's life-cycle. During the preperation phase the host will:

1. Decide title & theme
2. Write the challenge rules.
3. Pick the start date.
4. Specifiy entry limits (overall and per-entrant).

The challenge is then announced and the challenge host can take it easy in the days before submissions open. However, once entries start flooding in (and until the end of the voting phase) the host needs to review any complaints made against submitted images.

1. Review complaints
2. Disqualify entries (pro-actively and/or in response to complaints)"

Challenge hosts are volunteers and so forcing them to spend time and resources weeding out cheats is not appropriate. If hosts were paid for their time then maybe then adding weeding out cheats could be added to their role.

Yes, all of the above I pointed out to tasad when he claimed (incorrectly) that checking for suspicious activity is a host's "job".

I just uploaded a test photo to a challenge and changed the capture date manually. Why this is an always-editable field I don't know. Why keep it editable if the capture date is already extracted from the entry's exif?

If for whatever reason the image has no exif data, then sure, allow the entrant to enter a date... in this case, flag the image with some kind of 'alert' icon or note so that the host can immediately see that the image had a manually entered capture date (unless the challenge has no date restrictions in which case who cares). The host can then proceed to handle things however they wish.

Not allowing manual dates screws only the dumb cheaters obviously but it's at least something.

Exif data on its own is useless for verifying when a photo was taken because it can very easily be replaced deliberately or even inadvertently.

One quick and simple example, when replacing a sky in an image using Photoshop Elements, depending on how you do it, the final edited image could very easily end up with exif data from the image containing the sky.

Which is why I wrote that preventing manual capture date stops only the dumb cheaters

Another thing could be to let hosts see partial IP addresses of entrants and voters. Did Joey Clicker and Jimmy Snapper enter images from the same IP?

IP addresses don't really prove anything if a member uses a VPN because they can hide behind an IP address from just about anywhere on the planet and change their IP address every time they log on if they like.

Sure but the point is to -discourage- at least the more mentally-challenged from cheating, by having tools that do not necessarily prove a cheat as much as flag a possible one. How the host wants to use those tools is up to him/her. I suspect most either don't want the additional "job" or are content with tasad just doing it for them (oh the irony)

Did Joey and Jimmy give 5 stars to each other's entries? For extra benefit, something like a "possible duplicate accounts" button could be displayed for hosts to alert DPR admins.

Little things to alleviate unnecessary big things.

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm pretty sure it would. I did say "alleviate", not "eradicate"

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
1

Decisive Comment wrote:

.......

Sure but the point is to -discourage- at least the more mentally-challenged from cheating, by having tools that do not necessarily prove a cheat as much as flag a possible one.

Yep, fair enough

How the host wants to use those tools is up to him/her. I suspect most either don't want the additional "job"

I suspect that most hosts would stop volunteering their time to be hosts if DPR instructed them to actively look for cheats with the Challenges system as is.

I imagine it would be very time consuming for hosts to sift through 100 or whatever challenge entries looking for signs of cheating.

or are content with tasad just doing it for them (oh the irony)

Tasad is a fantastic example of how difficult it is to prove someone has actually cheated.

Short of someone fessing up to cheating or doing something really, really stupid tasad at best can only make assumptions to support his unconditional accusations of cheating.

Since tasad is clealy not judge and jury on his own, every member has the right and option to evaluate for themselves, as judge and/or jury, the accuracy and validity of tasads assumptions and accusations.

And that is the way it should be

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
Decisive Comment
Decisive Comment Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)
5

embie wrote:

David1961 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion.

And I see you are still unable to post anything that proves what I have posted is not 100% accurate.

I am happy to see you are still enjoying this (as you posted yesterday) as much as I am

Time will prove it, notice my words, although, now potential cheaters are alarmed and drop out, job done, mission accomplished than.

As long as DPR allows re-joining after being banned, and leaving the challenges so open to being gamed, there's nothing for cheaters to be 'alarmed' about. Keep in mind that these people IMO must have a screw or two loose to want to manipulate these challenges which offer no reward; they aren't fans of fair play, they'll keep coming back and just whistle in the wind if/when tasad or anyone catches them.

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,578
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)
1

Exactly

And the "smart" cheaters tasad is unable to identify will most probably continue laughing at him.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads