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

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.

If so, you still wouldn't get verbatim applications. Also note terms where applicants must not submit someone else's idea nor submit on behalf of another. That is clear and already existing in the terms.

If you collaborate, submit one proposal from one person then do the project together. Perhaps name collaborators in proposal rather than submitting identical proposals under different names.

Proof for some things could be found in the metadata of the submission that site admins probably have some level of access to. IP addresses, login times, cookie tracking, user agents, screen resolution, OS, languages installed, etc. There are many ways to fingerprint a browser that makes random coincidental results fairly unlikely - e.g. demonstrated by Panopticlick. Just testing my browser today showed:

Making it more complicated may discourage people, but this is not about making the application process more complicated or difficult. The terms I listed are already the currently operating terms of RoadTests. The new rule is more like a warning to potential repeat submitters, but mainly only affect how RoadTests are vetted - that affects the staff. If people fail to read and understand this, that's not exactly the fault of element14, nor should we condone mindless enrollment. The issue is ensuring quality, legitimate RoadTest proposal submissions and some level of fairness, transparency in selection, in part to avoid needless waste of time on the submitter and judger's behalf.

As it stands, a RoadTest review is a commitment at least 20-times greater than that of a proposal alone. If a potential reviewer isn't willing to pony up a decent proposal, it seems unlikely they would be able to put in even greater effort to deliver a quality RoadTest.

- 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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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