RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

I find it rather difficult to believe two applicants would come up with verbatim applications independently, so I think if you do find duplication like this, it is not unintentional and likely represents a "bad actor" of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if those who don't know anything about the program perhaps try to take it to the extreme as with other lottery competitions - automating account sign-ups and spamming duplicate entries by the hundreds of thousands.

I think that any duplicate entries should be disqualified, particularly if it is found that the accounts are recent sign-ups or perhaps the two accounts have been logged in via the same IP or have been signed up on the same/nearby days. Regardless, it is highly suspicious behaviour and I think the RoadTest terms and conditions should cover this in:

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea.

I suspect maybe that's not clear enough that it refers to the individual rather than an account - but as someone already mentioned - addresses, phone numbers, e-mails are ways of weeding duplicates. But already, given the above conditions, there really doesn't seem to be an excuse for a verbatim-duplicate application. If one had been improved in some way - perhaps this is a sign that someone didn't know how to edit their application post-submission. But there shouldn't be any way for unprivileged members of the site to view other people's applications (short of a few bugs in the early days), so foul play in the way of copying other people's applications can be excluded.

While I think excluding them from recommendation is a relatively light punishment, I would be in favour of excluding them from selection for that RoadTest at a minimum. Perhaps even excluding them from the RoadTest program as a whole would not be too unfair, as it seems very likely that the applicant wanted to have some level of unfair advantage and probably didn't even read or understand the terms and conditions of the RoadTest they were applying for. I suspect such candidates are unlikely to be quality applicants anyway - if they were, perhaps you could reach-out to them for an explanation, but I probably wouldn't go so far.

- Gough

I find it rather difficult to believe two applicants would come up with verbatim applications independently, so I think if you do find duplication like this, it is not unintentional and likely represents a "bad actor" of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if those who don't know anything about the program perhaps try to take it to the extreme as with other lottery competitions - automating account sign-ups and spamming duplicate entries by the hundreds of thousands.

I think that any duplicate entries should be disqualified, particularly if it is found that the accounts are recent sign-ups or perhaps the two accounts have been logged in via the same IP or have been signed up on the same/nearby days. Regardless, it is highly suspicious behaviour and I think the RoadTest terms and conditions should cover this in:

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea.

I suspect maybe that's not clear enough that it refers to the individual rather than an account - but as someone already mentioned - addresses, phone numbers, e-mails are ways of weeding duplicates. But already, given the above conditions, there really doesn't seem to be an excuse for a verbatim-duplicate application. If one had been improved in some way - perhaps this is a sign that someone didn't know how to edit their application post-submission. But there shouldn't be any way for unprivileged members of the site to view other people's applications (short of a few bugs in the early days), so foul play in the way of copying other people's applications can be excluded.

While I think excluding them from recommendation is a relatively light punishment, I would be in favour of excluding them from selection for that RoadTest at a minimum. Perhaps even excluding them from the RoadTest program as a whole would not be too unfair, as it seems very likely that the applicant wanted to have some level of unfair advantage and probably didn't even read or understand the terms and conditions of the RoadTest they were applying for. I suspect such candidates are unlikely to be quality applicants anyway - if they were, perhaps you could reach-out to them for an explanation, but I probably wouldn't go so far.

- Gough

Some folks collaborate on projects and even with RoadTests so it might be possible where one person comes up with the idea and another publishes the proposal.

Besides, how is it possible to prove any of this?

Making the submitter process more complicated may discourage more than just the RoadTest abusers.