Banned and/or may not bash questions

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
TomW

TomW

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,436
Location
Allen, Texas
Last year I escaped a potential mess when I allowed Radams into the library article contest, not knowing he was banned.... I've lost sleep ever sence :biggrin: .

Since we know that incomplete contact info keeps one from bashing, I started looking at my authors. High on the list i come across George Butcher (texatdurango). His profile is incomplete... more like empty.

So, That got me thinking... should we (e.g. Jeff) post a public message about participation in the bash regarding profiles? Should we each individually contact people like this, or should we just leave it alone and not let them participate??? It gets stickey when it is really easy to complete the profile, so any work I do today gets negated next month and I have to check again? Can we have a deadline for when people get declared in-eligible? Seems like this needs to be completed in January!

Secondly, Is there a 'banned' list? If not can we send Jeff or Curtis a list to be "declared eligible"?

Sleepily...

Tom
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
TomW said:
Last year I escaped a potential mess when I allowed Radams into the library article contest, not knowing he was banned.... I've lost sleep ever sence :biggrin: .

Since we know that incomplete contact info keeps one from bashing, I started looking at my authors. High on the list i come across George Butcher (texatdurango). His profile is incomplete... more like empty.

So, That got me thinking... should we (e.g. Jeff) post a public message about participation in the bash regarding profiles? Should we each individually contact people like this, or should we just leave it alone and not let them participate??? It gets stickey when it is really easy to complete the profile, so any work I do today gets negated next month and I have to check again? Can we have a deadline for when people get declared in-eligible? Seems like this needs to be completed in January!

Secondly, Is there a 'banned' list? If not can we send Jeff or Curtis a list to be "declared eligible"?

Sleepily...

Tom
Click to expand...
Here is the list Mike posted in the other thread:
As of right now the following people are banned from IP activities due to non-compliance in previous activites:

kennspens, johnkofi, CrashMPH, Ozne69, indychips, livertrans, Phillywood.
 
TomW said:
Last year I escaped a potential mess when I allowed Radams into the library article contest, not knowing he was banned.... I've lost sleep ever sence :biggrin: .

Since we know that incomplete contact info keeps one from bashing, I started looking at my authors. High on the list i come across George Butcher (texatdurango). His profile is incomplete... more like empty.

So, That got me thinking... should we (e.g. Jeff) post a public message about participation in the bash regarding profiles?YES Should we each individually contact people like this,NO, unless Jeff does not post anything. or should we just leave it alone and not let them participate???YES, if they do nothing to resolve it It gets stickey when it is really easy to complete the profile, so any work I do today gets negated next month and I have to check again? Can we have a deadline for when people get declared in-eligible? Seems like this needs to be completed in January!

Secondly, Is there a 'banned' list? If not can we send Jeff or Curtis a list to be "declared eligible"?

Sleepily...

Tom
Click to expand...
This info has been posted by mike before but NEW members may not be aware so a reminder/statement for them might be in order. The others should know it but just in case I guess we could use some method as a reminder.
 
I intend to start posting teasers about the BASH. I'll incorporate that rule into one of them. George's profile use to comply but not to long ago he decided to make a point about signatures be eliminating his. Apparently he wiped out his whole profile. I don't think he will mid restoring the minimal information required if it gives him a shot at some public recognition
 
"Here is the list Mike posted in the other thread:
As of right now the following people are banned from IP activities due to non-compliance in previous activites:

kennspens, johnkofi, CrashMPH, Ozne69, indychips, livertrans, Phillywood"

This list is of those who are not banned from the site, but rather are ones who have not completed swaps, trades, etc. I know several on the list failed to completes PITH events, and probably other things.
 
I'm still think we need a general posting regarding profile information in order to play in the bash. I still have one (that I currently know of) (Tex) that is in violation, and needs to be resolved.

Tom
 
Which article of Tex's is in the running?

The overwhelming majority of IAP Activities require the participants to do something. Once someone signs up they normally will be required to make and forward a pen, forward a package, or preform some sort of other action necessary for the activity to successfully complete. One could argue an exception to the profile rule would be justified in the case any contest that does not require the participant to to do anything. The Article contest and the Featured Pen contest may be valid exceptions, if we want them to be.

I am inclined to make that type of exception to the profile rule. The writer of the article or submitter of the picture are not expected to do anything else. They really didn't even enter an activity. All they did was share information valuable to all members or post a picture of a pen worthy of display on the front page. WE made to those submissions the subject of an activity. We do not want to discourage these type of submissions. Therefore, barring any major objections from Jeff or any valid arguments to the contrary the requirement for minimal profile information shall not apply in any event where other members are dependent on the participant to do anything.

Discussion???
 
mbroberg said:
Which article of Tex's is in the running?

The overwhelming majority of IAP Activities require the participants to do something. Once someone signs up they normally will be required to make and forward a pen, forward a package, or preform some sort of other action necessary for the activity to successfully complete. One could argue an exception to the profile rule would be justified in the case any contest that does not require the participant to to do anything. The Article contest and the Featured Pen contest may be valid exceptions, if we want them to be.

I am inclined to make that type of exception to the profile rule. The writer of the article or submitter of the picture are not expected to do anything else. They really didn't even enter an activity. All they did was share information valuable to all members or post a picture of a pen worthy of display on the front page. WE made to those submissions the subject of an activity. We do not want to discourage these type of submissions. Therefore, barring any major objections from Jeff or any valid arguments to the contrary the requirement for minimal profile information shall not apply in any event where other members are dependent on the participant to do anything.

Discussion???
Click to expand...


Mike, the Library article is http://content.penturners.org/library/pens/fountainpensection.pdf

Tom
 
The last sentence of my post should read:

Therefore, barring any major objections from Jeff or any valid arguments to the contrary the requirement for minimal profile information shall not apply in any event where other members are NOT dependent on the participant to do anything
 
mbroberg said:
The last sentence of my post should read:

Therefore, barring any major objections from Jeff or any valid arguments to the contrary the requirement for minimal profile information shall not apply in any event where other members are NOT dependent on the participant to do anything
Click to expand...


I concur with that.
 
The argument I have always heard for an incomplete profile is that they are "protecting their privacy". If someone wins a prize they will not be able to receive it and "protect their privacy"---since we have to ship at some point.

I really have no opinion on the reasoning for requesting a full profile---but the proposed interpretation seems to set up a double standard. It creates a precedent that someone could use later to argue with the "full profile" policy.
 
ed4copies said:
The argument I have always heard for an incomplete profile is that they are "protecting their privacy". If someone wins a prize they will not be able to receive it and "protect their privacy"---since we have to ship at some point.

I really have no opinion on the reasoning for requesting a full profile---but the proposed interpretation seems to set up a double standard. It creates a precedent that someone could use later to argue with the "full profile" policy.
Click to expand...
Valid point Ed!
 
ed4copies said:
The argument I have always heard for an incomplete profile is that they are "protecting their privacy". If someone wins a prize they will not be able to receive it and "protect their privacy"---since we have to ship at some point.

I really have no opinion on the reasoning for requesting a full profile---but the proposed interpretation seems to set up a double standard. It creates a precedent that someone could use later to argue with the "full profile" policy.
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.

Our reason for wanting the full name and location of residence in a profile is to discourage non-performance of participants in activities. In the contests cited there is not a requirement for the participants to "perform" so there is no need for the profile information based on our reason for wanting it.

Their reason (protection of privacy) for not wanting to provide profile information is immaterial to me. I don't care if they provide it or not. If they don't want to supply the information they don't have to, but they can't participate in activities that require some sort of obligation to do something on their part.

There is definitely no double standard. The standard is quite clear. If your participation requires you to do something (forward a package, provide some blanks) the profile information is needed. If participation does not make another member dependent on you, or does not require you to do anything (answer a trivia question, win a drawing) the information is not needed.
 
As I said, Mike. I have no real opinion on the "registration" matter.

But, when one makes a law (or policy), I believe it is best to allow very little room for "interpretation". Here, we are drawing a distinction that is vague, to me.

Had Ron Adams won, I believe we (IAP) did not want to award him a prize. Why? Because he was not interested in following the rules of IAP. If DozerMite has an article--do we allow him to win?? The registration was the basis of HIS problems too.

Just seems if they don't want to play by the rules the IAP establishes, why should they have an opportunity for benefits? (Beyond the benefits we allow lurkers)
 
Ed, I agree. But all rules should have a purpose. Rules should not be enacted merely for the purpose of having rules. The purpose of the profile information in regards to activities is to discourage people from not following through with something they promised to do (Forward something) and derailing an activity or shortchanging other members. In the type of contests I'm talking about neither of those two reasons apply. To me, there is nothing vague about it. It is very clear.
 
Actually, in further discussion, Dawn brings up a good point.

If an article is submitted to the library, it COULD, conceivably be plagiarized. So, in order to know who can be questioned should this be alleged, we ought to have sufficient information on the author to establish his copyright. So, there is really a stronger argument for having all information on our authors, than there is for some guy who may win $50 in a trivia contest.

The author of SOME article is likely to be awarded $200 this year.

Is it too invasive to ask his real name and city? And, if he refuses to provide it--on what basis?
 
mbroberg said:
Ed, I agree. But all rules should have a purpose. Rules should not be enacted merely for the purpose of having rules. The purpose of the profile information in regards to activities is to discourage people from not following through with something they promised to do (Forward something) and derailing an activity or shortchanging other members. In the type of contests I'm talking about neither of those two reasons apply. To me, there is nothing vague about it. It is very clear.
Click to expand...

The way it has been presented last year was, "in order to participate in bash activities, you must have your profile filled in". If they win the trivia, your argument is equally valid--there is no purpose to having their information, we are not obliging them to do anything.

This was what drove Dozermite to start his "anti-trivia" last year.
 
Last edited:
I think if anyone wants to participate they should have to provide the information. Even if its just trivia. If they dont want to provide it, nobody is making them participate.
 
Or maybe Jeff can answer this. Is there a way to keep the personal info.... name and location private where only admin can see it? Kinda like the posts counts?
 
ed4copies said:
Actually, in further discussion, Dawn brings up a good point.

If an article is submitted to the library, it COULD, conceivably be plagiarized. So, in order to know who can be questioned should this be alleged, we ought to have sufficient information on the author to establish his copyright. So, there is really a stronger argument for having all information on our authors, than there is for some guy who may win $50 in a trivia contest.

The author of SOME article is likely to be awarded $200 this year.

Is it too invasive to ask his real name and city? And, if he refuses to provide it--on what basis?
Click to expand...

Dawns point is valid. I argue that if the purpose of requiring this information is to discourage plagiarism then perhaps requiring name and location of residence should be a requirement of members who want to submit something to the Library. But I'm talking about participation in activities because I am the Activities Manager, not the Library Manager.

I've stated the purpose of the rule several times as it related to activities. No matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or otherwise try to debate it there is no reason to apply a rule that is intended to discourage participants from not following through with an obligation to a contest that does not require any follow-up in the first place. If the behavior that the rule is designed to discourage is not a factor in the contest, why apply the rule.

In answer to your questions, No. I personally do not believe it is to invasive to ask for a real name and city. Where the intent of the rule is not a factor then it shouldn't apply.

As to what basis a person would have for not providing the information, don't ask me. You would have to ask the person who refuses to provide the information because that is a personal decision.
 
I completely disagree with the logic - if someone is going to win, they're going to provide their information anyway...why not upfront, so that no-one has to track them down?

The rule is in place to make people accountable. What if a company sues the IAP for plagiarism, because a library article is directly taken from a book. What if Joe Blow argues later that a submitted pen is actually his, that he sent to someone as a gift. We have no way of investigating, because all we have is a screen name.

What does the policy hurt? Why not keep it in place if it does no harm and may help?

Is there a clear reason why we're doing this change in policy at such a late date? Is there a possible problem that we're forseeing that this policy is intended to abate? It seems like we're forever making exceptions to rules. The newest one is: No profile, no participation in activities...except in the Bash.

I strongly think that the requirement to fill out information for submission to contests is going to make it much easier for the prize delivery team to administer the prizes. Why not make it easier on the volunteers, especially with so many prizes to deliver? (and i know firsthand how much work goes into that, as I did it myself a few years ago).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom