RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

I'm really late to this convo. but I must say, they could use another house, such as a parents, child's, friends, or another estate that belongs to them.

Perhaps.

It all boils down to what I'm interested in - I apply for RoadTests I'm interested in and I put in a commensurate effort in my applications which aligns with the value of the item. If the conditions are not something I feel I can meet, I'm not going to bother applying. If people aren't selective about their applications or how they apply their effort - this is not my fault. The fact I do end up with high-end gear is not relevant at all - nor is the thread about sharing gear, so I have no idea why you're mentioning it. I've never been against sharing gear in any way (where did I say I was?), but being in Australia doesn't provide many opportunities as I'm not going to be spending large amounts and risking gear to just ship it over to someone for an experiment.

If you feel this is complaining bitterly - it's not. I merely spent the time to basically explain that this doesn't seem like a new rule at all - it is already covered by existing rules so I think what is being done is kosher, but perhaps insufficient. I also acknowledged that "rules are rules" and people will be free to ignore and not read them. But I also pointed out there are ways to better detect/weed out such duplicate submissions and identify bad actors. The fact this is made explicit by Randall is probably to try and deter such things happening in the future

Between all of this, somehow you feel that this is somehow affecting fair players? That is what I find a bit curious. A fair player isn't likely one that has two accounts and would accidentally post a verbatim submission. Likewise the chances of two unrelated people posting verbatim submissions is very improbable. How am I hurting fair players by mentioning that the existing policy already covers this? I'm basically saying that this doesn't change anything because the existing rules already cover it ... but perhaps you don't agree with my suggested list of punishments - that's fine ... but I don't think advocating harsher penalties for something fair players wouldn't likely do is something that would hurt fair players at all - merely improve their collective chances.

Logically - if you penalise the duplicate submissions - reduces pool number to fair non-duplicate submissions -> increases chances for fair players. Of course, i have an interest in this because I don't submit my applications in duplicate and spend some time to research and write them. But also I don't want to see Randall have to weed through them manually - it's not easy to spot if there are lots of applications and if only some duplicates are spotted and others are missed, this could be unfair. That was why I mentioned potentially better ways to use metadata to help flag such possibilities. I don't see how this is not concern for the fair players - if I truly had no concern, I would advocate leaving the duplicates in or recommending them because they were somehow "more interested".

In fact, it sounds like you're implying that somehow I'm using a strategy which is "unfair" and that I would do "anything" to win more RoadTests. But no, the whole point of posting was because I really couldn't understand why Randall even needed to mention it at all, as I always thought it to be the rule.

- Gough

To all commenters,

I appreciate everyone's input. It's made me think about our RoadTest Rules. Here's an update.

Yesterday, we researched the two accounts (our developer team and community manager) that had identical applications. They may be coming from the same person, or two different people working together. We aren't 100% sure. If you are going to work with a team, I would recommend submitting one application with both names so we know, but this team effort is primarily for school teams.

Every applicant needs to submit his own application. No one can submit an application for someone else. I recall recommending a few times a guy who does not write great. But he did his best and his reviews were informative.

Beyond that, I found some old correspondence from this person's email; he said he didn't receive a roadtest product that he was sent. We checked the tracking number and it was already delivered. He was unaware of it. It seemed odd to us at the time although I guess this situation is possible, to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whether these two applications are from one person or two doesn't matter since one of the accounts has at least one outstanding roadtest review that I am waiting on from him to submit. I've been told by another one of our program managers that he was sent product for another project that he has yet to complete.

When I see someone is completing their reviews by the deadline, the person's credibility rises in my eyes.

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

Gough Lui

Each to their own, but you don't see me participating in design challenges here either for a particularly good reason as well ...

Nope you just apply to the high end gear RoadTests, I guess it's bang for your buck.

It's interesting how you complain bitterly about multiple entrants (seems poorly written ones) but the thought of sharing opportunities for good gear does not enter the equation. Your complaining sounds like more of its not fair that you might get a slight disadvantage from someone else than real concern about fair players in the RoadTest Environment. I guess each to his moral self.

What salary does a RoadTest biblical Solomon garner today?

I chuckle at the self awareness or lack of each post provides. You are either the sheep or lemmings herder of the technology myopic and heads in the sky. I do not envy your role but, do wish you the best of luck

Please continue to share your experiences as the RoadTest overseer. These opportunities provide us mere mortals, insight into the program. When I first joined the site  You provided the chance to explore and provide feedback on the RoadTest application process. This exercise enabled me to recognized the potential of the RoadTest venture for Element14 and why it must be well managed.

Keep up the good work! Your focus and investment will continue to improved the program. Please accept this post as it's intended. A shameless, overt plug to gain favour in the eyes of the RoadTest judge, so I get a larger half of the next FREE child.

Sean

Of course, there will always be ways to evade it, but that doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to it either, especially if there isn't a legitimately good, fair and just reason for it happening.

Each to their own, but you don't see me participating in design challenges here either for a particularly good reason as well ...

- Gough

One can create an environment that will prevent from being detected so there is not guarantee with that.  However, thanks for showing the attitude that has led me to never participate in another RoadTest on this site again.

Some sweepstakes or free giveaways are encouraging multiple application from the same person as each access to that page increases some page access number, resulting in more numbers of advertising displays. It is not the case for applying and winning a RoadTest review. This must be clear for all participants and, this large discussion will make easier to find the right answer for those who will search on element14 site about "Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications" AND/OR "Under Different Names" 

Well, as with everything, it's both clear and unclear at the same time depending on how liberal you want to be in your interpretations. I'm only providing my views as I see it from the T&Cs as published on prior RoadTests.

I mean, the outcome of this discussion is likely going to be another rule that will probably go into the T&Cs, so if the problem is about the interpretation of the T&Cs, then basically we're back to square one ... It's always a case of definitions?

That being said, I do agree with the fact that adding more stuff to the T&Cs isn't going to change much on the premise that so many people don't read them anyway. People still probably submit poor applications despite all the "how to apply" tips provided. I guess this was more about warning anyone else thinking about doing the same?

- Gough

Interesting how this has gone from a discussion about a something we don't have a clear understanding of to being decided and definitely determined. Sounds like in future the FBI, Scotland Yard, CIA, NSA MI5 among others should be involved in the selection process to be sure al rules, regulations and correct intentions are followed.

OOPS let's not forget a full complement of lawyers to be sure any interpretation of the rules fits with the best "intentions" of the road test community.

Kas