Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 2563 subscribers
  • Views 2298 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

rscasny

I recently received two applications for a roadtest where the answers to the questions were identical for each application, but were submitted under different names. I'm not sure what the motivation is for doing this, or whether the applicant has two accounts, or any other reasons that I'm not aware of. My new rule is when I see this, both applicants will not be recommended as an official roadtester. If you would like to comment on this new rule, please enter your comments below. Thanks.

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

Parents

  • Mans ingenuity is inexhaustible when it comes to finding ways to gain an advantage.

     

    It could be argued since it wasn't in the rules no foul. Ethics and integrity suggest just because it doesn't say it, doesn't make it right.

     

    Good catch on your part to recognize the duplication. Bad on the part of the conspirator to think it was acceptable to improve their odds of selection by duplicating the application process. Doubly bad on their part for not even modifying the two applications. I suspect he didn't do well in cheating on exams. The dupe and his compatriots all provided the same wrong answers on the test and wondered how they got caught.

     

    I speculate, if the candidate was selected you would not have gotten a RoadTest Review. Yes there are some nice products in the RoadTests I would like to have in my shop but duplicity to achieve such a goal is short sighted.

     

    I don't believe your punitive response is adequate. I feel a year suspension from participating in RoadTests is more appropriate. If found in a subsequent offence then exclusion from participation. Unfortunately, it increases the your logistics of policing the activity.

     

    Sean

Reply

  • Mans ingenuity is inexhaustible when it comes to finding ways to gain an advantage.

     

    It could be argued since it wasn't in the rules no foul. Ethics and integrity suggest just because it doesn't say it, doesn't make it right.

     

    Good catch on your part to recognize the duplication. Bad on the part of the conspirator to think it was acceptable to improve their odds of selection by duplicating the application process. Doubly bad on their part for not even modifying the two applications. I suspect he didn't do well in cheating on exams. The dupe and his compatriots all provided the same wrong answers on the test and wondered how they got caught.

     

    I speculate, if the candidate was selected you would not have gotten a RoadTest Review. Yes there are some nice products in the RoadTests I would like to have in my shop but duplicity to achieve such a goal is short sighted.

     

    I don't believe your punitive response is adequate. I feel a year suspension from participating in RoadTests is more appropriate. If found in a subsequent offence then exclusion from participation. Unfortunately, it increases the your logistics of policing the activity.

     

    Sean

Children
No Data