POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : Illegal Entry? (IRTC related) Server Time
31 Jul 2024 22:11:23 EDT (-0400)
  Illegal Entry? (IRTC related) (Message 11 to 20 of 23)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 3 Messages >>>
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 20 Jun 2009 15:15:00
Message: <web.4a3d34b28f017c6b1d5d3f0@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
> > atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
> > to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
> > TC-RTC.
>
>   So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?

You didn't understand a word of what I was writing.

It's not the weird principles I'm worried about. It's the amount of attention
they get, which indicates that people seem to be heading towards putting more
emphasis on those principles than on common sense. I honestly don't give a pair
of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be - all I care about is
whether the atmosphere will be dominated by common sense or by nitpicking.

In a common sense atmosphere, even the weirdest rules will be ok because common
sense allows them to be ignored for good. While in a nitpicking atmosphere, the
best rules will be misused, tweaked and... well, nitpicked about.

Nor do I have any plans of "boycotting" the IRTC: That would imply staying away
with the intention to exert pressure. While instead all I'd do would be opting
for the "leave it" part of "take it or leave it".


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 20 Jun 2009 15:26:22
Message: <vsdq35h6ltgn33hrqm5ujtfmju23442are@4ax.com>
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:12:50 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>I honestly don't give a pair
>of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be

Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 20 Jun 2009 20:05:01
Message: <web.4a3d782f8f017c6b73b318a20@news.povray.org>
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >I honestly don't give a pair
> >of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be
>
> Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)

Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.

So I see not the slightest sense in me adding even more to that details
discussion.

I'm sure there is a common consensus that we don't want the IRTC to be an
absolute "purist" competition (*), nor do we want it to be a generic digital
arts competition. We want it to be a 3D rendering competition (**).

Whatever actual wording is chosen, it will not be able to do this common
consensus full justice. So just pick *some* wording, and instead of trying to
make it airtight, allow some room for people to breathe, so they can *live*
that "common-sense consensus".

(* In this context, I do acknowledge that a proposal was made for a "purist"
sub-competition; however, even this does not seem to go against the presumed
common consensus.)

(** It is not clear to me whether the common consensus covers 3D rendering in
general, or just raytracing, or whether there is actually disagreement; this
issue - but I think only this one - needs to be sorted out, and if there is
indeed disagreement that cannot be settled, someone will need to make a
decision.)


Post a reply to this message

From: andrel
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 06:43:12
Message: <4A3E0EC0.30407@hotmail.com>
On 21-6-2009 2:01, clipka wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> I honestly don't give a pair
>>> of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be
>> Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)
> 
> Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
> unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.
> 
> So I see not the slightest sense in me adding even more to that details
> discussion.
> 
> I'm sure there is a common consensus that we don't want the IRTC to be an
> absolute "purist" competition (*), nor do we want it to be a generic digital
> arts competition. We want it to be a 3D rendering competition (**).
> 
> Whatever actual wording is chosen, it will not be able to do this common
> consensus full justice. So just pick *some* wording, and instead of trying to
> make it airtight, allow some room for people to breathe, so they can *live*
> that "common-sense consensus".

Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what 
programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the 
community take that into account when rating an entry?

I agree that it is impossible to define exact rules and that not only 
there will be different interpretations now but that in 5 years time 
people will not even agree with their current opinion. So in stead of 
trying to fix the rules now and inviting people to find examples of 
false positives and false negatives, formulate broad and let the 
community decide.


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 08:53:11
Message: <l8bs35pqdgd8sgi060llvhpt0kgimkvdqm@4ax.com>
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:01:31 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
>unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.

Sorry Christoph, that is one of those English phrases that does not mean what it
reads, literally. Just the opposite in fact.

I agree with what you have said. Personally I thing that any rules should be
contained in the name. IRTC not Internet Raytracing or Scanline With the Use of
Image Manipulating Software Limited to Adding a Watermark or Changing the Gamma
Settings Competition. Although IRSWUIMSLAWCGSC does have a ring to it. :-) 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 08:55:01
Message: <web.4a3e2ceb8f017c6bc9dd53ff0@news.povray.org>
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what
> programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the
> community take that into account when rating an entry?

Sounds like a reasonable idea. (Again, I'd say apply common sense of what
"exactly" means in this context; maybe "in detail" would be a better word.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 08:55:35
Message: <pabs35tjghcn9cqhm86o1mus7uf02ijq79@4ax.com>
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:43:12 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what 
>programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the 
>community take that into account when rating an entry?

That's alright for you whose command of English is very good. Have pity on
others who cannot write very well.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 11:30:33
Message: <4a3e5219$1@news.povray.org>
clipka wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
>>> atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
>>> to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
>>> TC-RTC.
>>   So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?
> 
> You didn't understand a word of what I was writing.
> 
> It's not the weird principles I'm worried about.

  With "weird principles" I was not referring to the IRTC rules, but to
your principles.


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 13:40:00
Message: <web.4a3e6ffa8f017c6bc9dd53ff0@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >>> If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
> >>> atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
> >>> to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
> >>> TC-RTC.
> >>   So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?
> >
> > You didn't understand a word of what I was writing.
> >
> > It's not the weird principles I'm worried about.
>
>   With "weird principles" I was not referring to the IRTC rules, but to
> your principles.

Ah, I see. Which would be then? And what would be weird about them?

Well, there is a principle indeed: In case I don't like it there and don't need
to be there, I won't go there.

Weird? I really don't think so :P


Post a reply to this message

From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Illegal Entry? (IRTC related)
Date: 22 Jun 2009 12:26:34
Message: <4a3fb0ba$1@news.povray.org>
Here is a suggestion to help to filter painted images from truely computed.

What about a post-dead-line mandatory submission of nearly the same image, with a
substitution, addition and/or removal with/of basic shape and texture, along with a
move
of an existing object.

For instance, for your picture:

vertical axis (either clockwise or counter, up to you)
  2. Put a sheet of paper in front-side of fridge. To hold it, use either
red/black/blue/yellow magnet (small cylinders are ok)
    For extra bonus, the sheet of paper is the original picture. (not mandatory)
  3. Put a duplicate of the cup, upside down, near the coffee-machine. Colours can be
changed.

Submitted second picture MUST match the original one, excepted for the requested
features.

It's a bit of work for the IRTC-men, but that way, basic collage/transformation of
format
are still allowable, and painted become a pain to really win something (even respect).



Real suggestion for your image: all the wooden doors are missing a knob...


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 3 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.