RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

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

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.