Sunday, January 16, 2011

Important blog concerning this weeks entries

   Good day or evening as the case may be, this is gary writing today. It was brought to the admins attention that one of the entries had a small violation in the rules and I'm sad to say it's our first place entry Joanne. This was an oversight on her part I know however rules state that there is to be no text on the image. She has a small water mark with name and date on the bottom left. I being the admin on duty should have caught this and had her change/crop or what ever to have it comply with the rules. However I dropped to ball and missed it, and as such Joanne now has to pay the price of my inattention.
  The admins have been discussing this and Joanne was notified, we wanted to wait till after talking with her before putting this up.Once again I know this was an oversight on her part and she wouldnt knowingly violate the rules. But, sadly we have to adhere to them, each and everyone in order for this group to function.The admins are discussing what to do at this point in selecting this weeks winner. No matter how its decided I know it wont be 100% to everyones satisfaction. So later today after the rest of the team is awake, we will decide what to do.I welcome suggestions from each of you in how to handle this. Just remember as much as I would like to let the vote stand I dont think in all fairness we can. So a second best method needs to be decided. In the end however the admins reserve the right to decide how we feel best for the group.
   Once again, everyone please bear with us till we have this matter resolved. Once again Joanne it really pains me/us to have to make this decision. Now everyone think about this and toss us some ideas. 

314 comments:

  1. I broke the rules too. Added a small watermark. I sure need to go back and read ALL of the rules as I am one that like to follow the rules of the game, no matter what the game!

    ReplyDelete
  2. the reason the text thing was placed in i believe was some people had very noticeable marks on their entries..those detract..many however are subtle and do very little to detract...once again that will need to rectified at the conclusion of this competition so the next one will be better understood

    ReplyDelete
  3. If anyone is outraged or mad at this decision please direct that towards me and not the rest of the admin team as I was the one on watch at the time

    ReplyDelete
  4. Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at all this week's finalists and honorable mentions. 3 HM's had signatures.

    ReplyDelete
  5. like i said some really do nothing to take away the eye from the beauty...we had four sets of eyes deciding this week...and all of these 20 were all recommended by each of us..shows we are far from being perfect

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just heard about this. Now, I have always stood by the rules for the PP competions, but must admit this one had slipped past me also. I always post with a digital signature on my photos. I understand in principal why you have to do this, but please bear in mind for discussion with the other admins, what I consider a MORE important principal. That is the RIGHT to protect our work when posting in 'open' online sites and competition. Without a watermark or digital signature, our work is more open to theft. I think consideration should be given to this when the admins discuss what to do about it. I for one will refuse to remove my signature from my photos. If that means foregoing any chance of winning or placing in the Top Ten, then so be it. I feel quite strongly on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I also misunderstood the rule regarding text. I sign and date almost everything I post, when I don't it's because i forgot not because i didn't intend to do so. I took the text rule to mean anything beyond a watermark or signature. I earned an HM last week and several last competition period, all were signed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. thanks mitch..and this has been a long standing concern for artists posting...so i guess we can try and come to a decision as to let digital signatures stand or not...again this is going to be a can of worms i am sure

    ReplyDelete
  9. Last week there were 2 finalists and 4 honorable mentions with signatures or words added to photos

    ReplyDelete
  10. i think you should let the contest continue as it was.....it was an oversight on the judges picking the top ten so joanne should not be disqualified.....the picture is awesome and deserves to be there......

    this is how we learn.....

    ReplyDelete
  11. While I haven't been able to compete recently for several reasons--

    I understand why some don't won't the water marks due to the distraction but I can't help but agree with this statement that mitch has made.

    I can see both sides here....and both are valid.

    ReplyDelete
  12. lynda im sure if we dig back there will be several..its now a matter of trying get the genie back in the bottle so to speak

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm sure not (and I didn't make either top ten or honorable mention), glad the rule has been brought forth as I like to follow the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  14. thanks lynda ...again this is an open forum so everyone has a say as long as they are a member of Pic Perf..this is set to contacts only for that reason

    ReplyDelete
  15. adding watermarks does NOT deter theft...it just means the thief has to remove your watermark...to add one that does deter theft would have to distract from the picture

    now I agree that Joanne's doesn't distract and it also doesn't deter theft as it can be removed quite easily...whether you let this pass is your discretion....

    maybe she should just repost this original...just saying

    ReplyDelete
  16. The text rule was put in place when a lot of photos were coming with quotes and even poetry written right on the photo itself which was very distracting to the photos, but it does state "any text" so we unfortunately feel we have no choice but to enforce the rule. Each of the admins looked at all the photos in the top ten and HM closely several times. It's a common thing for online photos to be "signed" which is the reason I believe none of us noticed it happening. We are all equally responsible for overlooking the issue and the wording of the rule. Right now we need to come to a reasonable consensus on how to proceed with this week's poll and winner.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Have always heard, "Don't cry over spilled milk". Mistakes and overlooks will happen. To me there is not a problem as this was not discovered until after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  18. it's just a copyright signature. not too distracting, if i may say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. again...it isn't....I can take it off and no one will know

    ReplyDelete
  20. i am talking about "text" on the picture issue. wrote my comment based on what grawmps blogged about.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That does not mean a person does not have the right to put it on their photo in the first place. I think we all understand how cloning and other editing can remove signatures and watermarks. But I for one believe I have the right to place one on my work and not be penalised for it. I will continue to use one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dana is correct, the signature doesn't deter theft, they can easily be removed, cropped out or even used with the signature for whatever purpose the thief has in mind. I'm not sure what to do in the case of this week, my instinct says overlook it. If the purpose of not allowing text is because it deters from the photo, then let that stand on it's own. A photo with a distracting signature would, one can assume, never have been nominated for the top ten as the judges would have been distracted.

    Joanne's capture and entry was fantastic, worthy of both the nomination and her pride in signing it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I limit on the size so it doesn't distract the eye I understand, but in a competiton which is non-anonymous from the outset, it makes no sense to have a blanket ban.

    ReplyDelete
  24. We really need to have some good constructive ideas of how to proceed now with the current competition. We will address the rule for next week and going forth after this week's competition is complete. So....any suggestions other than to let it stand?

    ReplyDelete
  25. if what mrsh said is so all these need to be removed for fairness or this time leave them all- all or none

    ReplyDelete
  26. what i understand from the ppf text rule is that no one is allowed to add quotes, poems, etc... it didn't specifically say not even a signature. i guess it's just automatic for members to sign their entry to prove that it's their own original photo (another rule says no picture taken from the internet, etc...)

    ReplyDelete
  27. this does't prove anything...I can add my name to your pictures...

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think so.... I never even noticed her signature until it was mentioned here because the photo is so perfect. Your eyes are immediately drawn to the hippo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree!
    Perhaps this should be allowed in the rules of the group . As for this case...I don't think it distracts from the picture one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. let it stand. joanne's picture is picture perfect. and is deserving to win.

    ReplyDelete
  31. since there were a few others I agree with you for this time let it stand--

    ReplyDelete
  32. Let's go with the way things are and make the rule "From now on". Now we are all aware of the rule, we can comply and let this competition stand. It is obvious that MANY people, knowingly or unknowingly, violated the rule, so how far back do we go? This comp? Last year's comp? Let's be realistic and start clean and informed from today.
    BTW: I don't enter much anymore, but when I get a chance, I love to "cruise" the pics! So much talent here!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mad or outraged? (lol). I get mad when my 16 year old does teen stuff and puts himself in danger... I'm outraged when animal rights are put aside for gain. A lil watermark on a shot doesn't outrage me. I've seen another entry this week that won an honor after breaking a writen rule. (not a watermark rule) I wont go pointing fingers and getting all *outraged* lol. This is a fun group.. run by fun folks that put their hearts and souls (not to mention precious time) into their/our passions... no reason to get all mad & outraged.

    Since this is an admin *error*... I suggest she takes off her writen words and we move on, filled with our knowledge of this rule from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  34. again folks we like to think of the group as being owned by the people that play here...so maybe we can put up a poll at the end of the voting day if she is still leading and let the Vox Populi vote and see where we stand and how to proceed the rest of this competition and the future ones

    ReplyDelete
  35. This is ludicrous. I thought this was supposed to be fun?

    ReplyDelete
  36. i say let the pictures all stay and let the voting continue.....removing hers and any others in HM that may have text on won't change anything.

    and let the text remain on this weeks.....

    ReplyDelete
  37. Your current rule is your current rule and to be fair to all previous winners you should stick to your rules and disqualify her, but if you're gong to change it, make sure everyon knows the start date.

    ReplyDelete
  38. someone agrees with me....cool

    she can fix the mistake

    ReplyDelete
  39. as i said the consensus will not be 100%..i think my head is hurting again

    ReplyDelete
  40. poor baby even this shall pass LOL

    ReplyDelete
  41. lol yeah heidi it will...i hope quickly

    ReplyDelete
  42. when this weeks theme came up the first photo that i saw was joannes hippo and i told her that it was an incredible picture that i didnt even want to enter because i knew that i could not beat that. she is such a sweetheart and encouraged me to enter.....

    and i did.

    we all looked at her hippo shot.....everyone of us....and no one noticed or said anything either pre choosing.....or post....about the text......until now.....

    let this week be another lesson to learn from.....nothing more....nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A signature watermark and date are not really distracting text, perhaps clarify the rules? It is up to the admins ( our refs) on this one, either way works. Joanne's picture was well done and beautiful as all the entries were. My vote would be leave it. I am sorry these things happen, they must happen for a reason. Someone get aspirin for the admins /:-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. don't go getting a headache, as you said, 24 sets of eyes were not distracted.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I feel that since the first place photo was already selected, there was no intent to break the rules, and it was subtle, and the photographer desired copy protection... it should be allowed to stand-- This time.

    But.. perhaps the rules should be modified to allow faint tiny watermarks, as this is quite a bit different than "Text on the image"... for instance it could have been a copyright symbol (no text) and it would have been allowed. Watermarks are already intended to be subtle wheras text on the image is not intended to be subtle. So.. if the watermark text looks more like a symbol than text (watermark text blends in)... maybe watermarks should be allowed (with constraints defined in the rules). It could even be made retroactive to allow this weeks winner to prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  46. if it is true as ethansdad said that watermarks and signatures can be removed why bother putting them on???

    ReplyDelete
  47. she put them in a place that can be cropped out
    most artists sign their work be it written or otherwise

    ReplyDelete
  48. ive watermarked and put text on mine before.....hidden.....like on a leaf or something....

    and theft happens.....what can you say, some people are rotten and claim others work. if you dont want it stolen, dont put it on the internet......

    ReplyDelete
  49. end of the copy-write issue.....don't post because it means it can be lifted

    ReplyDelete
  50. I had no idea we couldn't sign them for the comp, mine was signed, though I came nowhere. I feel that Joanne's was an outright winner, so let her take off the offending watermark, and win, as she should??

    ReplyDelete
  51. i think the pic should stay as it was entered

    ReplyDelete
  52. Because there is an important principal involved here. It's NOT about the technical issue of whether digital sigs or watermarks are easily removed. That has already been established. What IS relavant is that I have the proprietorial rights to my work and as such I have the right to put a signature or watermark on it. It is no different to the music industry, for example. They put a copyright notice on CDs, but folks will still make illegal copies. This doesn't mean the industry is wrong to put the notice on in the first place, they have the right to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  53. i agree with you mitch a hundred percent.....

    so if that is the case here within the confines of this contest....then remove her from the top ten....and anyone else who violated the rules

    ReplyDelete
  54. just quickly scrolled through some entries, quite a few are signed, some got HM or TT ?????
    At the danger of repeating myself and others, let's leave it for this time and we have all learned. I have learned something, no more framing or signing for PP Comp.

    ReplyDelete
  55. *Grabs an asperin and tosses one to starfishred*

    I've taken watermarks off my own pictures... it can be done! By me or by anybody that wants to claim my shots as theirs. But I do agree *Artists* should be able to protect their stuff if it makes em feel safer.

    I say we cook up gator for lunch for being such a badboy lolololol

    ReplyDelete
  56. does gators taste like crocodile, cause that is delish !!! I am ready for dinner and haven't cooked yet.

    ReplyDelete
  57. No more framing? Mine is framed...... rut oh

    *takes another asperin*

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well... we haven't solved our beloved admin's issue.....

    but we now know what we're having for lunch :D

    ReplyDelete
  59. hey what about me?? Never mind.....................*pours a glass of red wine and waits in anticipation*

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hmmmm.....better tell the music industry to stop selling all those CDs then, they can be copied!! Best not sell 'em if you don't want them copied.

    ReplyDelete
  61. let us vote then ?? Does Joanne win or not ??? Yes or No ?

    I say Yes !

    ReplyDelete
  62. I can do a mean sauce piquant. but he's a bit mature, may be tough.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Joanne wins and we get a great meal out of this!! :D

    (Anybody seen the gator? He seems to be in hiding... wonder why *gigglin*)

    ReplyDelete
  64. lol when folks ask to take me out for dinner..why am i always suspicious that i may be dinner

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'll bring a few yummy side dishes :D

    They say a good beating of the meat tenderizes it

    ReplyDelete
  66. they, like you, can take the thief to court to obtain the money made from the sell of stolen work...if I find one of my picture being sold I have the camera ID on my computer to prove it was taken with my camera...sell my pictures...make me rich

    ReplyDelete
  67. And they, like me, have the right to put notice on their work.

    ReplyDelete
  68. not on Picture Perfect................

    ReplyDelete
  69. yes we all have the right to put our names to our work.....and yes not on PP

    ReplyDelete
  70. fotofriday - Chickens feel the same way (invited out for/to be dinner)

    I feel watermarks are very different than "Text on image". Text is intended to be noticed. Watermarks are intended to blend in. What about a watermark "Symbol"... (not text)..? Would that meet the rules? What's the difference text vs symbol? Therefore, perhaps watermarks Should be allowed but with PP guidelines. I think the main issue is that it not detract...not be noticeable.

    On occasion on my favorite photos (never entered one yet), I hide a tiny pixel sized set of initials so small it would NEVER be discovered even if searching for them ... but... if someone were to claim my photo... I could find MY initials on "their" photo as proof of my ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Make the rule clearer from this point forward. I must admit that I didn't even see her watermark. However, I do believe that this was caught before the posting of the winner and therefore must be considered. The rule may be altered to say that watermarks will be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  72. bit of garlic and some lime juice should fix that

    ReplyDelete
  73. Just want to point out that I"m not gonna allow this comment to make me make a risque reply. rare moment of self control.. sort of proud of it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. this boils down to the letter of the law and the intent of the law..granted the artist has the right to sign their work...granted that anyone can remove said signature...the point is how do we deal with it

    ReplyDelete
  75. agreed, rules are rules.....

    so that being said.....disqualify any that have a watermark and resume voting

    ReplyDelete
  76. As I stated in my very first comment, I will continue to use a digital sig on my photos. If that means disqualification from the competition, then so be it, but I will not change my principal.

    ReplyDelete
  77. leave the rules the same or change them
    LOL sorry

    ReplyDelete
  78. mitch i love your pics...with or without a name on them.... your very talented

    ReplyDelete
  79. Toss me some of those, would ya?

    ReplyDelete
  80. question.....

    would you remove the pic if it was not winning

    ReplyDelete
  81. I never noticed her watermark, so it can't possibly have been distracting. And that's the purpose with "no text", right?
    So let this things be as they are! We have voted for the image we liked best. I'm sure these few small words on her pic made no difference, positive or negative.

    Of course we must have rules, but we can also decide to use common sense in cases like this.

    ReplyDelete
  82. if this matter was brought before the admins as a matter of rules infringement we would still be discussing it...but removing it would be a moot point

    ReplyDelete
  83. is it common sense because we like the picture or the person.....

    why have rules then?

    ReplyDelete
  84. If you decide to apply the letter of the rules and disqualify Joanne's photo, then all others, mine included, that made Top 10 or HM with a sig or watermark should also be disqualified. The rules have to apply fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  85. well I don't know Joanne and I didn't vote for her photograph, I had another favourite, but looking at the votes, obviously it was a winner, it is a clear win !

    ReplyDelete
  86. I agree, and that includes my HM... I would like to ask why this is an issue now, when it never has been before.

    ReplyDelete
  87. so...where did all the fun go???????

    ReplyDelete
  88. competition is a two edged sword...folks always step up their game..and folks take comp more serious

    ReplyDelete
  89. *lol* of course not.
    it's not about this image and joanne in particular. following rules as if they are the only things that matters, are many times too simple. being a group of intelligent and creative people, we can be able to consider new inputs and make wise decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Perhaps that should be addressed to the person making the original complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I will have to look into this, but I do believe a precedent of "text" on a winning photo, a signature in this case, had been set when I was chosen as winner.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Rules are rules... but... how do we interpret the rules...
    The forbidden "Text on image" is overlaid ON the image (a clear violation),
    but watermarks use existing pixels and are an integral part of the original IN the image, not added.
    Ya I know... but it's a way to bend the rules about no text ON image (it's IN the image).

    To solve THIS dilemma, maybe declare that watermarks are NOT considered "text on image" but then immediately tighten the watermark rules for the next contest.

    I think with clarification of the rules regarding watermarks... text or graphic watermarks should be allowed... because... otherwise many people would NOT share their photos.
    Hmm, it seems that graphic watermarks (not text) already ARE allowed, so why not watermarks of text?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Well, yeah... I have an evil little thought in my head that maybe whoever pointed this out is just mad or jealous that their pic wasn't chosen. I realize that may be very far from the truth, but that's what it seems like to me.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I believe in the comments it was noted that Gator himself saw it.....

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ok, well never mind then, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  96. it was pointed out to me by another contestant

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think someone else noticed it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. ya gotta love good drama don't ya!

    ReplyDelete
  99. thats what the "Bard" always said vic

    ReplyDelete
  100. I've been reading the comments here and have remained quiet. I appreciate the support of those of you who have said let it stand. Thank you. However, as non-distracting as my signature and date may be (and yes, Dana, I sign all my pictures - its my right and my choice and I will continue doing it) a rule was broken. I am withdrawing my photo from the competition. Even if the photo garnered the most votes, it wouldn't feel right to me to accept it as the winner. I did not intentionally break the rules. As I said, I sign and date ALL of my photos - it was just with this one, I forgot to remove the sig and date. An oversight on my part, and a cause for debate here. As to how the rest of the competition goes, I'll leave that up to the Admins. A suggestion would be to change the rules a bit to allow unobtrusive watermarks or a small copyright symbol. We all know full well that they can be removed and pictures stolen, but as I said, it MY right and MY choice whether or not to put it there.

    So, I thank all those who voted for my photo - its very much appreciated. I am very proud of that photo - it was very lucky timing. But I'd like to put this to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. For next week...Clarify the rule!!! I assumed it meant poems, titles, sayings...but it does say text.


    IF Admins. want to follow the letter of the law....go for it.
    IF Admins. want the vote to stand....go for it.

    We have Admins so war doesn't break out!!!

    Smile...and move on folks! Life is way too short with too much pain, hate and anger for this!

    ReplyDelete
  102. as Joanne didn't do it knowing it I suggest to forgive her and give her the prize for a marvelous pic. what's the difference in voting? we all know who we are voting for with a signature or not. It is a rule that we should erase as it has no consequence at all in the contest. so go Joanne, go, yours is the best pic of the week for the majority of us.

    ReplyDelete
  103. There was a question on the Poll page regarding rules from a member, but it didn't relate to sigs/watermarks but to putting the pic on a Multiply page rather than linking to a photosite, so I guess they may not be related.

    ReplyDelete
  104. ...just read the blog above!

    Anyhow, I don't know the person who brought up this theme, but why bring jealosy into this? There can be so many reasons..maybe he or she who simply loves rules?
    "Ordnung muss sein", as they say in Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I told you it was an evil thought... I shouldn't have voiced it... I'm sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Joanne before you remove yourself from the voting we will continue to deliberate and try and resolve this in the best fashion...so for now it still stands you are leading...heck the voting hasnt even ended yet so "technically" its not over

    ReplyDelete
  107. but that is not your fault Joanne ! There are others with signature on it too. I also signed mine, and though I am not TT or HM, I should have been disqualified then and it brought to my attention, if that is the rule. I just feel as we got so far, why now spoil it and I do not feel you should remove your photograph. It was a lovely entry, though I must admit I did not personally vote for it, but feel you should be the winner, as it was definitely the overall favourite !! Hugs.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hahahaha We are so proud of you!!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Very well said Joanne. I love the photo and agree with your suggestion to "change the rules a bit to allow unobtrusive watermarks or a small copyright symbol".

    ReplyDelete
  110. that could solve the issue, clever chicken ...........oooh sorry , Bert..........*smile*
    and stipulate a size and placing of watermark for future contests.

    ReplyDelete
  111. That is a whole other blog and I'm not so sure Multiply will allow such here! Hehehe

    ReplyDelete
  112. LOL, also true. I will be back later to check out the outcome of this debate. Sad though it is.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yes, an excellent suggestion!
    I must reconsider my thoughts about chickens and their brain's capacity ;)

    ReplyDelete
  114. February of last year I wrote the admins here for clarification on the text rule, this is the reply I recieved on the 17th of that month.


    fotofriday wrote on Feb 17, '10
    we prefer no writing on the pic..I think it detracts from the actual photo..if you do use the words, make them small and discreet


    for whatever that is worth.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I think she shows a lot of personal integrity by not becoming embroiled in the ongoing discussion and for her gracious offer to withdraw. I agree with Gary that she should wait for a final decision on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  116. and the plot thickens, as they say.....................oh dear !!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Yes, an excellent suggestion!
    I must reconsider my thoughts about chickens and their brain's capacity ;)

    ReplyDelete
  118. I'll exchange 2 asperins for a glass of wine! Red wine is delish with gator meat!

    Rah rah for Joanne's wonderful pic!

    ReplyDelete
  119. well if yer gonna have drama, it should at least have a plot with a few twists, right?

    ReplyDelete
  120. To save face on this particular PP contest.....

    The rules say "No text on image"... what about the PP contest theme "Signs"... ALL of them had "Text on image"... they should all be disqualified.

    I say we decide what "No text on image" really means..

    To me "Text on image" means "Descriptive text placed ON the image by the photographer"....
    To me, existing text on image, and watermarks should be considered a whole different category than PP "text on image" and therefore watermarks would NOT violate the current rules.

    For future contests, simply redefine the rules about adding watermarks (new PP specifications).

    ReplyDelete
  121. Exactly Nico! Oh and it was a great picture indeed!!

    ReplyDelete
  122. I just checked on my winning photo, and yes, it has a "signature" on it... plainly visible. I do it on most all the photo's I post.

    Picture Perfect (Competition week 3) ~ Urban Decay

    ReplyDelete
  123. it seems most folks think no foul was committed...lmao about the signs thing bert...as stated i think the rest of the day needs to run the course...then the admins will decide or we will put it to a vote..so it seems there has been a precedent set in this regard....

    ReplyDelete
  124. You'd have to pry the Star of the Week from my dead, cold hands first... :D

    ReplyDelete
  125. wine is on the way mimi lets all have one shall we and make joanne queen for the day shall wecheers

    ReplyDelete
  126. as precedent has been set, and former wins can not be taken back, it seems unfair (should Joanne's photo continue to lead) to enforce this rule to the letter in the middle of a vote. If signatures and watermarks are intended in the text rule, it should be added ( no text, including sig....)

    ReplyDelete
  127. I think the best way to handle this and to keep things simple, is to award the win to the second place finisher, if you feel that her picture must be disqualified. This is how it works in every other type of contest I've ever heard of. First place gets disqualified, for whatever reason, second place gets the win. Frankly, however, I'm not sure why that was made a rule for competition week in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Folks this isn't about the past...There are old, crazy laws on the books for states, towns and countries around the world that "Police" can call on to make a point. The point here is that if someone decides to contest the current standings the Admins in charge have to decide what to do. They have asked us to vote
    A. Let it stand
    B. Disqualify

    I'm good with admins choice and rule clarification for Wednesday! I have faith in the admins. and it is clear to me from the one post Joanne made that she would be satisfied either way. The vote has shown her the support for her picture! To me the vote alone means more than anything else would!!!

    ReplyDelete
  129. The sauce piquant will be quite spicy so it should be a very hardy, rich red wine.

    ReplyDelete
  130. lol well this really pepped up my sunday afternoon

    ReplyDelete
  131. on my way Vic....two bottles should get us through the evenings charades

    ReplyDelete
  132. you know in fla it is illegal to sleep with an alligator ..what an outrageous law

    ReplyDelete
  133. I"m not a drinker, could ya bring something non alcoholic also?

    ReplyDelete
  134. I vote to change that one real darn quick!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  135. in louisiana it's illegal to cross the road with a chicken on your head. but i think we can sleep with a gator, with a chicken on our heads. course, ya may wake up chickenless.

    ReplyDelete
  136. It's up to the admins in the end. I think we've given them more than enough to think about...

    Now is time to tackle that law for my Gator friend... cause I do believe we may have a problem:

    ReplyDelete
  137. I'm reminded of the line from "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" where the irate philosophers say "We demand CLEARLY defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!!" LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Is that cuz gators like head?

    ReplyDelete
  139. well i resisted gettign risque once, a man has limits ya know.

    ReplyDelete
  140. dinner is now officially late says Russell.

    ReplyDelete
  141. just checked it out, wow oh wow oh wow. What a photograph.

    ReplyDelete
  142. LOL good one ! Nice to see so many sweet people having some fun while debating a serious issue, PP is about fun, right?

    ReplyDelete
  143. I knew you were gonna do it...

    ReplyDelete
  144. It's good to have fun instead of arguing and sniping at each other.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yes, dear, and I know how hard it was for you...

    ReplyDelete
  146. Morning all, Im perusing through the comments as quickly as I can...I was made aware of this issue late last night and decided we should bring it out into the open and discuss it amongst the admins before taking any action. Let me read comments before commenting any further....

    ReplyDelete
  147. alright children, sit quietly while Heather reads....

    ReplyDelete
  148. We will not ever force any photographers not to watermark or stop signing their work, we have to reword our rule so it says as much. We just dont want the watermark or signiture to detract from the overall aesthetics of the picture, but they may be used. s its been pointed out to us, many others.have used signitures and waermarks as well

    Personally i think the the picture should stand, the blog result stay as it is and we move forward.

    That rule will be changed today!

    Heather

    ReplyDelete
  149. You follow directions quite well!!

    ReplyDelete
  150. just finished reading all the comments. Figured I might as well put my .02 in for what it's worth....

    I think we need to let this weeks results stand, because obviously her signature was not distracting in the least from the photo, else it would have been caught before voting started.

    For next week, the admins need to decide whether or not discreet signatures/watermarks are allowed. Personally, I believe they should be allowed. My feeling is that when the admins said 'no text', they meant nothing that would distract from the photo, such as poems, sayings, large signatures and watermarks across the photo.

    I cannot imagine that a discreet signature or watermark should disqualify someone from the competition.

    ReplyDelete