Mark Schmudde wrote:
Computer glitch,  sorry.  I can't get rid of the second post.  No delete.

No worries

Rachel Jay wrote:
I'm sorry you feel that way.  BUT, the rule was put in place for a reason... and that reason was that in the past, it seemed that some people voted for an image based on the 'story' that went with it, and for MANY of us, that makes this a lot less fun (and rather unfair, as sometimes, many people didn't feel the image was worthy of voting for, but the story was). 

An editorial comment is an editorial comment.  It can be 1 word, 1 sentence, or one paragraph... but either way, the rules were broken, and it wouldn't be fair to the people who have made an effort to NOT break the rules if we allowed certain exceptions. 

Other people who are DQ'd based on the rule violation (not including the ones AB already caught):
Craig Seay
PenelopieJones Prod
Night Light Images

Actually I wasn't aware of the rule, and when you're snarky warning was first posted.....the *sigh* was unnecessary and unprofessional from someone who is trying to be accountant like in her enforcement of rules......I went back and edited out my simple "barbie does goth" comment so I would stay in the rules.

Then I go down and see AB had already disqualified me anyway.

But hey, it's your competition and therefore your rules, run it how you see fit.  You won't have to worry about me "not going out of my way to follow the rules" anymore.

Niall rhymes with real wrote:

vote

Chris Keeling wrote:
Actually I wasn't aware of the rule, and when you're snarky warning was first posted.....the *sigh* was unnecessary and unprofessional from someone who is trying to be accountant like in her enforcement of rules......I went back and edited out my simple "barbie does goth" comment so I would stay in the rules.

Then I go down and see AB had already disqualified me anyway.

But hey, it's your competition and therefore your rules, run it how you see fit.  You won't have to worry about me "not going out of my way to follow the rules" anymore.

Then you didn't bother to read the first post of the thread, which even has a bolded statement regarding the newer rule, and even has the rules listed at the top, in caps, so you don't have to try hard to find them.  Here it is again:

AB Young wrote:
Imporant note: Myself and Rachael Jay, and Blue Ash film group will be taking over while Micheal is on break. If your picture doesn't fit the contest any of us have the power to DQ it.
Anyone in violation of the rules will be DQ'd please take a look at the rules especially number 8 before posting!!! Also no talking back and forth in here and no editorial comments. Specifically note rule 8

***UPDATED RULES EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY***

1. ONE ENTRY PER DAY, ONE VOTE PER PERSON PER DAY
2. NO BUMPING
3. NO VOTING ON PAGE 1 (GIVE ENTRANTS A CHANCE!!)
*IF PAGE 2 IS NOT REACHED BY 2:00 CST...START VOTING
4. ALL 18+ IMAGES MUST BE LINKED
5. OP ACTS AS SUPERVISOR OF "QUALIFIED IMAGES"
6. NO COLLAGES, MULTIPLE IMAGES, ETC....ONE IMAGE ONLY!
7. NO VOTE STACKING (Getting votes from people on your friends list who are normally not participants in the contest)
8. NO EDITORIAL COMMENTS (Post the photo for its stand alone merits)

*VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE RULES WILL RESULT IN A DISQUALIFICATION FROM THAT DAY'S CONTEST. THIS NEED TO BE CONSISTENT AND FAIR FOR EVERYONE.

Niall rhymes with real wrote:

Vote

Rachel Jay wrote:
Sorry Daizee Balcum, but you're DQ'd as well.

huh?

Jade Noir wrote:
Death becomes her.

vote

Rachel Jay wrote:
Then you didn't bother to read the first post of the thread,

No I didn't.

Because I've played the Concept thread since day one of it's inception on a regular basis, and No, I don't read every single rule every single day.  No one does.

Once I saw your warning, I adhered to the rule immediately, only to find after I did that warnings aren't actually given, instead disqualifications with scolding remarks are immediately implemented on first infraction.

Again, your contest your rules....and you can treat the customers any way you want.

And as a customer I can decide that kind of attitude is something I don't want to be around.

I'm surprised to have ever had this conversation with especially you Rachel.  I've never considered you anything but respectfull and thoughtfull, and I've never thought of you as a kneejerk reactionist.

Chris Keeling wrote:
No I didn't.

Because I've played the Concept thread since day one of it's inception on a regular basis, and No, I don't read every single rule every single day.  No one does.

Once I saw your warning, I adhered to the rule immediately, only to find after I did that warnings aren't actually given, instead disqualifications with scolding remarks are immediately implemented on first infraction.

Again, your contest your rules....and you can treat the customers any way you want.

And as a customer I can decide that kind of attitude is something I don't want to be around.

I'm surprised to have ever had this conversation with especially you Rachel.  I've never considered you anything but respectfull and thoughtfull, and I've never thought of you as a kneejerk reactionist.

If you (or any one else) can't be bothered to read the rules, then it's your own fault for breaking them.  Rule #8 has been in effect since Oct 6th, and it was put into place based on ENTRANT FEEDBACK.

FYI, I didn't post my first note on the rule and then contact Ashley.  She took action where she saw fit, without any push from me.  She might have seen my post, she might not have, but you'll notice that I didn't actually call you (or the other 2 who had broken the rules before my post) out in my post. 

I volunteered to take over as one of the contest moderators here because I was sick of all the bullshit in these threads.  Prior to volunteering, I help MW out with pointing out the rules, contacting people who posted 18+ images without linking, and often sent him feedback and ideas.  I didn't start doing it to be a bitch, and I didn't volunteer to help take things over to be one. 

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.  People complain if there are no rules, and people complain when the rules are enforced.

Rachel Jay wrote:

If you (or any one else) can't be bothered to read the rules, then it's your own fault for breaking them.  Rule #8 has been in effect since Oct 6th, and it was put into place based on ENTRANT FEEDBACK.

FYI, I didn't post my first note on the rule and then contact Ashley.  She took action where she saw fit, without any push from me.  She might have seen my post, she might not have, but you'll notice that I didn't actually call you (or the other 2 who had broken the rules before my post) out in my post. 

I volunteered to take over as one of the contest moderators here because I was sick of all the bullshit in these threads.  Prior to volunteering, I help MW out with pointing out the rules, contacting people who posted 18+ images without linking, and often sent him feedback and ideas.  I didn't start doing it to be a bitch, and I didn't volunteer to help take things over to be one. 

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.  People complain if there are no rules, and people complain when the rules are enforced.

In spite of my objections you continue to categorize me and others as people who are too lazy or too apathetic to read a rule.  If that's how you feel then my decision to leave is just re-inforced.

At no point have I complained about you enforcing rules, I merely questioned your method of doing so.  Again, you think harshness is the way to go and I don't.  As long as you are running the show we'll disagree about that and I don't feel I could enjoy playing knowing your opinion of me is lurking there.  The easiest way to solve the problem if for me to just go away.

Since I am not a regular player as of this moment, any more conversation about the matter would just be me trolling, so I'm out.

pRoDiGy pHoToG wrote:

VOTE! and PS.... You seriously ROX!!!

Chris Keeling wrote:

Fine.  Good day.

Rachel Jay wrote:
If you (or any one else) can't be bothered to read the rules, then it's your own fault for breaking them....

...I volunteered to take over as one of the contest moderators here because I was sick of all the bullshit in these threads....

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.  People complain if there are no rules, and people complain when the rules are enforced.

I was disqualified for posting the model's name as I always have. Is a model credit now an editorial comment, giving unfair advantage? I believe you are misinterpreting the intention of rule #8. The way in which you are enforcing this new rule also seems excessive and if you continue with this you run the risk of killing the spirit of this thread.

Christopher Murr wrote:
I think that since this is a Concept shot of the Day thread, we can all agree, we all think somewhat outside the box. The No Editorial comments rule can be misconstrued as to the context of the rule. I think if you really want to make it a rule to have absolutely no text, then say that. Say, "Absolutely NO TEXT can be added to your submission."
I have seen plenty of posts that have the text on the image itself, sometimes the same info that another person gets disqualified for when they post it next to their submission. There are too many gray areas.
I am not complaining about you wanting to make rules and enforce them, I'm just saying, make the rule more direct.

Thanks for your feedback.  I will pass it on to the others moderating the contest and we will discuss.

Craig Seay wrote:
I was disqualified for posting the model's name as I always have. Is a model credit now an editorial comment, giving unfair advantage? I believe you are misinterpreting the intention of rule #8. The way in which you are enforcing this new rule also seems excessive and if you continue with this you run the risk of killing the spirit of this thread.

Craig, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was the model's name.  I thought it was the title of your picture!  I will remove your DQ.

Edit to add: Credits to others are ok, as long as it doesn't include things like "the sexy [model]", "the talented [mua]" or "the awesome [photographer]".  I noted that the other day...

AB Young wrote:

DQ'd due to not following rule 8 No editorial comments.

Come on guys how hard is it to follow the rules?

I'll just edit it out to make things better, k?

Rachel Jay wrote:

Thanks for your feedback.  I will pass it on to the others moderating the contest and we will discuss.

No problem.

MMDesign wrote:

vote

MMDesign wrote:

vote

ambercool dot com wrote:
I really applaud each and everyone of you guys for portraying the cemetery thing.  Death I don't mind too much, but pictures on cemeteries(unless it was a moment of burial or just the cemetery itself) has always been, in my mind, bad karma so I would never have the guts to do that.  Good job!

You don't have to shoot in an actual cemetery - if you want the effect, you could just shoot on a set. My shot was not in an actual morgue, but a set.

As far as bad karma goes - just about anywhere on the planet you choose to shoot, chances are somewhere, sometime in history someone died or was buried there.

The thing to remember is to be respectful wherever you shoot - whether it's a beach, office building or cemetery.

Tanya Weaver wrote:

vote

Niall rhymes with real wrote:

vote

Ricardo Sevilla wrote:
My Contribution

vote

Fotographia Fantastique wrote:

You don't have to shoot in an actual cemetery - if you want the effect, you could just shoot on a set. My shot was not in an actual morgue, but a set.

As far as bad karma goes - just about anywhere on the planet you choose to shoot, chances are somewhere, sometime in history someone died or was buried there.

The thing to remember is to be respectful wherever you shoot - whether it's a beach, office building or cemetery.

A fake cemetery like a set I would agree with.

The karma I am referring to I think historically comes from if you were doing things with respect or not it's very disturbing.  I know I hear a lot of "tales" of places built on top of restless grave sites and they get haunted every day.  I know back in Vietnam it was because of the dead from the Vietnam War and so the monks would have to come in pray for the souls so that they do find peace and not disturb the living.  It probably is just from passed down experience that I am weary of it.  Nowadays there, before anything is built, they have monks who pray and chant to find out IF there were any dead on that land and if they've actually moved on before having anyone inhabit the places.

In America, even the place I am in now, my aunt had a monk come in to point out where to put demon wards(Chinese pentagram mirrors) in outlets of the house that are possible entries.  Pretty scary in my opinion.

Craig Seay wrote:


Edain Eternal

Vote!