 Posted 3/8/2008 6:30:46 PM
|
|
|
|
The "320" weight voter is cutting my top rated images off at the knees with pattern "6" voting. That would be more than 2 points off the average the images are carrying and the lowest single score the images have received. No response to RFC, so there is no constructive criticism, only destruction. This is strategic voting in its worst incarnation.
If this continues, I will report every vote from the anonymous "320" weight voter. Offer some suggestions for improvement, and it's okay. Stay silent and it's clearly petty strategic voting.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 3/9/2008 9:46:55 AM
|
|
|
|
| This sucks, Ricahrd. Sorry for that. I used to worry about those series of votes but realized there is so much I could do. At one point, I used to RFC any 6, especially if the shot is rated above average at the time. Thinking that if I RFC over and over, eventually they will at least THINK before they vote (for my photos or everybody's) I honestly still don't know why voters are allowed to be masked. I'm sure this has been discussed before, and it's probably 'free choice' but if you are honest in your votes, why hide the name. I remember reading about how if you vote a certain number below the average, you might be stopped from voting again. I wonder why DA is not playing with those numbers. Maybe something like: you can't actually vote five times in a row with a 6, unless you're leaving comments, or something like that. Again, sorry for the attack you have received. You're a fair voter and it's not fair. (not that it would be fair on others! LOL)
|
|
|
Posted 3/9/2008 10:11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
| I'm not going to name any names, but it's the same old story with the same old member. You know who I'm referring to Richard. I'm not stating that every 6 is a unfairly casted vote, but when almost every vote is a 6 with ignored RFCs, it's hard not to think this way. I just think, if one has time to vote and upload images to be voted on, one should have time to answer a few RFCs.
|
|
|
Posted 3/9/2008 11:34:07 AM
|
|
|
|
| DA has made huge efforts to curb targeted malicious voting..... I'm not sure there is a simple solution... Perhaps when it occurs, a posting of the alledged misconduct (as Richard has done), will help..... I can only say to anyone that think that malicious voting is acceptable..... It is NOT..... And my guess is that such a behavior by a DA member will eventually lead to that member becoming frustrated and disappointed in DA..... Another words, DA can be a fun place..... But malicious voting makes it less fun for EVERYONE; even the malicious voter..... Please just stop it!!!!!!!! just a thought, Daniel
Daniel's Profile
|
|
|
Posted 3/9/2008 12:39:55 PM
|
|
|
|
I can very well understand your agony Richard, its really really sad that this is happening to a fair voter like you.
A person who loses god loses everything, and a person who gets god gets everything.
|
|
|
Posted 4/11/2008 3:37:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Richard, I gave you a 6 once. But I told you why. i've also given you a truck load of 10's. That probably gets some kind of red flag going with the computer vote tracking monitor as well, but I hope the high votes counted. Why does anyone get malicious with all this stuff? After all, there's no money involved. It's not like you're going to win an exhibition at a prestigious gallery, or a big chunk of cash, or 15 minutes of fame and fortune on CNN or something. This is supposed to be a learning experience, and I have learned a lot from many Daily Award members, who are very generous with sharing knowledge and information--and this includes you, with your helpful insights. 
janiskir
|
|
|
Posted 4/11/2008 4:18:13 AM
|
|
|
|
| While I can understand your frustration I sure hope that you reported this to Admin and allowed him time to investigate. Since it is such a clear case action should be taken.
|
|
|
Posted 4/11/2008 9:14:44 AM
|
|
|
|
| I would contend that the higher the weight of the voter, the more obvious the malicious intent of a low vote becomes. Anyone here for long enough and who has been skillful enough to have accumulated a weight of 320, has to be a very good judge of the elements making up a good image. Such a person can have no excuse whatsoever for severely under rating a shot from one of our top guys. A vote of 6 from a high weighted member on any image submitted by Richard is plainly malicious in intent. Why? Because to my own certain knowledge he has consistently maintained a high standard of work, not one image of which has been worthy of such a low vote. To further compound this malice by choosing to ignore a simple comment request is the proof of the pudding. . I would suggest that all members with weights in three figures be compelled to answer any and every RFC made to them. With greater voting power comes greater responsibility. We shouldn't need to legislate for this - but its not a perfect world. Lets have mandatory measures to compel answers to RFC's from higher weights. The sanction could be the inability to upload further images until they'd dealt with all requests. . I would actually like to see a section of the site displaying, in real time, all RFC'S being made, and the replies. It would be quite illuminating to see how others offer their critiques - and it might herald a return to greater civility and better insight for all.
http://www.dailyawards.com/myprofile.aspx?CID=2488
|
|
|
Posted 4/11/2008 9:40:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
