integrity dilemma

I'm going to pose a situation and hope it generates some good feedback.
Recently on the Digital Photography Review forum a/k/a DPR there was considerable discussion about a well-known photo contest in the U.K. It seems there was a category for wild animals. The rules specified the animal pictured must not be captive. The winning entry was a wolf jumping over a fence. Other entrants complained claiming the wolf shown was a trained animal and the picture a set-up. After much investigation the judges finally disqualified the picture and photographer even though he staunchly claimed the picture met the rules.
Now, in our case, suppose we have a contest. Lets say for turned bowls. A winner is picked for #1. Later, another entrant complains saying the winner really bought the bowl at a show. But the winner says he turned it.
What to do?
My take. The final product, picture or bowl should stand on it's own. There is, and was, virtually no way to prove the wolf was, or was not, captive. Besides, what is 'captive'? Does it live in a cage? Or an enclosed five acre grounds? Or, maybe it lives on a 10,000, completely fenced game ranch. Is that 'enclosed'?
Or, who is to say who made the bowl?

this is one real good reason for not making competition on here as a common occurrence, and in my opinion not at all.. we are here to help one another and we all know that someone else is better at something than another.. there is and always will be cheaters..we dont need to condone it or give them a chance to reap benifits here..

Quick proof would be a shot (picture) of the bowl in progress on a lathe with the bodger's left hand clearly visible in the picture. The finished bowl would again be photographed with the bodger's left hand clearly visible in the picture.

Works especially well if the bodger wears a ring on their left hand.

People get hung up on rules and there needing to be rules IMHO. If the wolf were captured in the midst of performing as trained then that certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the competition - to capture a still photo of a wild animal.

In the case of a turned bowl, clearly the spirit of the competition is to submit a bowl turned himself/herself.

I've never understood why someone would feel the need to substitute someone else's work for their own. With regards to woodworking, one simple rule of being required to share one's methods and techniques as part of the submission aught to take care of it. But all in all, it sort of feels like being back on the playground again. Fortunately, most of us have grown up.

Frank,

Posting a *hypothetical* ethical problem is, in itself, an ethical problem!

So forget any comment on the bowl issue!

On the wolf: we all know what "wild" means, and if we sat down and talked about it there would be broad and shared agreement. Wild means wild!

The other ethical dilemma here is questioning the judges, who were elected or appointed to use their best judgment. If we start questioning that, where does it end?

Was there an appeal process? If no, we're done. If yes, was the process followed? If yes, we're done again...

Thanks,

Bill

I'm not much on contests anyway. I don't care for ribbons or awards. I do like the fact that shows bring a wide variety of work together for viewing but, as to who won or how? Don't care.

My take? Forget the online photographic contest on this or any other Forum. There's no way to prove anything. A "left-hand" as proof could be Photoshopped in the same way as I saw one of the wolf photos done. I've participated in juried exhibitions and believe that is the only way to be relatively certain that the person showing a piece actually made it.

Bill Lantry said:

Frank,

Posting a *hypothetical* ethical problem is, in itself, an ethical problem!

So forget any comment on the bowl issue!

On the wolf: we all know what "wild" means, and if we sat down and talked about it there would be broad and shared agreement. Wild means wild!

The other ethical dilemma here is questioning the judges, who were elected or appointed to use their best judgment. If we start questioning that, where does it end?

Was there an appeal process? If no, we're done. If yes, was the process followed? If yes, we're done again...

Thanks,

Bill

Click to expand...

Well...That sure covers it well! I kinda wish I'd sais it myself.

Thanks, Bill!

I can't imagine any woodworker submitting someone else's work as their own, either in a contest or just telling people they made something. Unless there was strong proof to the contrary, I'd accept their word for it.

If it were ever shown that they lied, they would be ostracized from anything to do with other woodworkers.

Mike

Mike Henderson said:

I can't imagine any woodworker submitting someone else's work as their own, either in a contest or just telling people they made something. Unless there was strong proof to the contrary, I'd accept their word for it.

If it were ever shown that they lied, they would be ostracized from anything to do with other woodworkers.

Mike

Click to expand...

Mike, I wasn't going to respond for a while. But, like you, I can't imagine it. However, the realities of life prove folks do strange things. Even here, it could happen.

larry merlau said:

this is one real good reason for not making competition on here as a common occurrence, and in my opinion not at all.. we are here to help one another and we all know that someone else is better at something than another.. there is and always will be cheaters..we dont need to condone it or give them a chance to reap benifits here..

Click to expand...

You couldn't have explained it better Larry.

Toni Ciuraneta said:

You couldn't have explained it better Larry.

Click to expand...

Woo Hoo! Larry won First Prize in the "Why Contests Are Bad" contest.

Seriously, I agree. Competition in any art form doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And as far as the wild/not wild wolf picture or hijacked bowl picture is concerned, I figure those people will get their due in the end somehow anyway.

I guess if there was that kind of contest, and someone did submit someone elses work and won, how would we know? I have a hard time thinking someone would do that, but if they did, well, I think the best punishment is that they would have to live with themselves!

On the other hand, doesn't this scenario play out all across the country in the form of the boyscouts pinewood derby? I know for a fact that when I was a kid, one of the kids dads owned a body shop and had one of his highly skilled employees craft and paint a car for his kid.

I concur (i think that's how you spell it) with Larry and Vaughn.

now SWAPS on the other hand can be fun,, no competition, just give a stranger or used to be stranger something you made,, that way everyone wins..

Frank,
I've heard about the wolf thing and won't comment on that...

But as I see your hypothetical issue on a bowl contest... if I were to submit a prize winning bowl that I did not make, but could theoritically be of a better quality and at a higher skill level than I could produce, it would raise the bar for submissions at future contests to a level that I could not match and I would be forced to continue to lie and cheat with ringer bowls.... that alone is an argument for ALWAYS sign your work.
Nothing goes out of my shop that doesn't have my mark on it.

and as Larry said "now SWAPS on the other hand can be fun,, no competition, just give a stranger or used to be stranger something you made,, that way everyone wins.. "
my sentiments too.

Frank you raise a good question for debate here. I think the heading of your post was more important than the competition element.

Simply put what has happened to ethics. (period).

Its not only in competition its universal.

Seems to me its a question of ego overiding integrity and ethics.

I mean you have situations where one invites someone to a function.

You ask them to RSVP in order to be able to plan.

The person doesnt RSVP but arrives at the function.

The list like this goes on and on in.

I dont see what the problem is with keeping your word when one gives it.

Maybe i am stupid cause i dont see whats to be gained by cheating. Yeah you get the prize etc and recognition of the win. But you have to be real thick skinned and have no scrupals not to look yourself in the mirror and know yourself that you did cheat.

Oh this subject gets me going so i best stop right here. I am +1 for Larrys comment.

I would also take their word for it. I don't understand people taking credit for something they haven't done.
If a person doesn't have morals, character or ethics than he leads a pretty shallow life.

There is a really simple answer.

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

I'll add a little story and see how other people respond.

I have a friend who's helped me a great deal, and is always "available" if I need something. The other day, he asked me for something which required me to go out of my way to satisfy his request. I was talking with my wife about it and I told her, "Robert has helped me a lot so I want to stay on his good side."

She got kind of indignant and said, "Don't you ever just do something for someone without thinking of what you're going to get in return?"

I replied, "Men keep score."

What I meant is that I feel an obligation when someone has helped me, and I expect another person to feel the same way. If I've been helping you, and then I ask you for help in return and you refuse (without a good reason), it'll likely be the last time I help you.

Do you share that "ethic"? Or do you just do good deeds and not "keep score"?

Mike