Suggested rules of conduct

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Skylane Contributing Member • Posts: 879
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
4

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

"in response to complaints" Which is what Tasad is doing

-- hide signature --

Charlie

Skylane Contributing Member • Posts: 879
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
6

"Since tasad is clealy not judge and jury, every member has the right and option to evaluate for themselves the accuracy and validity of tasads assumptions and accusations.

And that is the way it should be "

ONLY DPR Admin is judge and jury. For 9 years they have yet to fault Tasad.

-- hide signature --

Charlie

David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,568
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Skylane wrote:

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

"in response to complaints" Which is what Tasad is doing

And that is fair enough if the host believes that tasad's assumptions are true, accurate and valid.

No host is under any obligation to just blindly accept tasad's assumptions.

In either case, point 2, does not mean hosts must volunteer their time to sift through all the entries in their challenge looking for signs of cheating if no-one first lodges a complaint.

Point 2 clearly leaves it to the host's discretion regarding how much of their own time they want to spend looking for cheats if there are no complaints.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
Skylane Contributing Member • Posts: 879
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
6

Your ability to state the known and obvious is amazing, you have real talent there.

-- hide signature --

Charlie

David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,568
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Skylane wrote:

I wrote:

"Since tasad is clealy not judge and jury, every member has the right and option to evaluate for themselves the accuracy and validity of tasads assumptions and accusations.

<> And that is the way it should be "

ONLY DPR Admin is judge and jury.

Exactly and so every member has the right and option to question tasad's assumptions if he is asking members to accept what he posts.

For 9 years they have yet to fault Tasad.

I am not convinced you are telling the truth because a few days ago the admins deleted at least 1 if not 2 entire threads where tasad made unsubstantiated assumptions to support his unconditional accusations.

The admins would have had the option to leave tasad's posts and just delete the posts from members who doubted/questioned the validity and accuracy of his assumptions.

This suggests to me that the admins were also not convinced tasad's assumptions were accurate or valid.

I suspect there might have been other similar situations over the years.

 David1961's gear list:David1961's gear list
Canon EOS 90D
David1961
David1961 Senior Member • Posts: 3,568
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Skylane wrote:

Your ability to state the known and obvious is amazing, you have real talent there.

Thank you

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

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)

No text.

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

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Zzzzz, zzzzzz, zzzzz, zzzzz..............TIMBERRRRRRRRRR (n/t)

No text.

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

No text.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
Skylane Contributing Member • Posts: 879
Re: Suggested rules of conduct

Your welcome

-- hide signature --

Charlie

Decisive Comment
Decisive Comment Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
6

You know, intentionally trying to max out a perfectly decent thread is generally frowned upon by admins. Quit acting like a 3-year old child.

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

tony field Forum Pro • Posts: 11,070
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
5

New Day Rising wrote:

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.

Since David1961 is always 100% correct I will accept his word for it

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).

Certainly true. there are many valid reasons for multiple email accounts to appropriately segregate correspondence

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.

Tasad is a competent sluth to find such duplication

-- hide signature --

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

LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
12

I had not thought of that. My purpose was to show what David's useless posting amounts to, but I thank him for his opinion.

I have been on DPR nearly 7 years and have less then 200 posts. I am not a keyboard warrioras is the Gang of 4. I do vote in the challenges when I can. Those crying foul vote little and seldom if at all.

Decent thread. The same things said a dozen times a dozen different ways by a hand full of people? State your opinion and move on.

Tasad and his supporters just want to reduce the cheating within the constraints of the internet and DPR.

His detractors are just playing their game.

 LeeBic's gear list:LeeBic's gear list
Nikon D7500
Decisive Comment
Decisive Comment Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
1

LeeBic wrote:

I had not thought of that. My purpose was to show what David's useless posting amounts to, but I thank him for his opinion.

Well.... your purpose wasn't very evident. If this forum was moderated your notext replies would probably get removed and 50/50 chance you'd get temp banned.

I have been on DPR nearly 7 years and have less then 200 posts. I am not a keyboard warrioras is the Gang of 4. I do vote in the challenges when I can. Those crying foul vote little and seldom if at all.

Well.... I'm a DPR 2005 vintage and actually used to vote quite a bit. It's ok if I'm here, right?

What is everyone crying foul about? Explain please. Is it about bringing up the recklessness of accusing someone of cheating in the challenges? Is it about Tasad's Angels' ignorant "our way or no way" attitude? Tell me.

Decent thread. The same things said a dozen times a dozen different ways by a hand full of people? State your opinion and move on.

Yes, a "perfectly decent" thread, meaning whether you like or don't like some POVs, it has been relatively civil (as requested in the OP even). While I certainly agree some have said the same things a "dozen times a dozen different ways", from my viewpoint it seems to be because those responding along the likes of "I don't care what changes/improvements you're proposing, I'm with Tasad" are wearing blinders rather than trying to engage civilly. So yes, in the end, both sides end up just regurgitating a pile of verbal diarrhea (Tasad's corner a little less so likely because they don't even really bother to answer some points which IMO are valid).

Tasad and his supporters just want to reduce the cheating within the constraints of the internet and DPR.

You think his "detractors" aren't? If so, you aren't paying attention but that's ok, neither are the majority of his supporters.

Oh look, one of our own was told why 2+2 is not 8 and s/he responded with a "so what?"... I better +1 that.

If you care to look again with a little less bias, you will realize that every so-called "detractor" respects tasad for what he does.... but as soon as someone brings up a fault in his method, rather than think it through, you and others just circle the wagons, and may I add you all look quite silly.

But keep high-fiving one another just because.

His detractors are just playing their game.

What game?

Seriously.... what game? Let's recap what these "detractors" are saying:

1) tasad does a very good job bringing up suspect activity

2) cheating should not be tolerated

3) tasad's method can lead to 'wrongful conviction'

4) there are ways that the chances of #3 happening could be lessened

All's well until we get to #3. Beyond that it becomes a kind of blasphemy and mutual high-fiving -- even high-fiving you as someone who could have been looking at a temp ban for abusing the forum.

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

tasad Senior Member • Posts: 1,295
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
7

Decisive Comment wrote:

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".

So ,  as a host who hosted many challenges , you've never  seen this  and never been interested  of  doing this ? ...

LeeBic Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Suggested rules of conduct
5

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
2

tasad wrote:

Decisive Comment wrote:

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".

So , as a host who hosted many challenges , you've never seen this and never been interested of doing this ? ...

Short answer: no, never was interested.

Longer answer: when I hosted, this feature was non-existent until just a little while before I decided the whole thing isn't worth the time and effort.

Would I be interested in using that feature if I were hosting today? No. I would stop hosting, realizing that the whole thing isn't worth the time and effort. I have a real life to attend to, sorry.

-- hide signature --

Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads