I'm not sure I understand the rationale of the rule change, personally.
A few concerns:
This will make it much harder on the prize delivery and contest teams - and since they're all volunteers, why not make it easier rather than harder?
The only information that was previously required for participation was true name, location of residence (City and State) and a PM or Email through the IAP. In the past the prize delivery and contest teams still had to contact the winners and get their street address and zip code so the prize could be shipped to them, or an outside email address that will accept attachments. Under the new rule the prize delivery and/or contest teams may have to ask for a name, in addition to the address. How is that so much harder? Also, keep in mind that the contest chairpersons are also volunteers and to enforce this rule they have to check the profile of every entrant. Eliminating that necessity for the types of contests we are discussing makes life easier for them.
The allowance of anonymous entries would permit someone to send four different entries from different accounts, unless someone's scrutinizing their IP addresses closely - and we don't do that, I don't think.
Yes, that is true. If someone is predisposed to "beat the system" they will find a way to do so. Can anyone tell me with any certainty that no individuals have registered several different times, using several different names? Do we check IP addresses upon registration? Is it possible that someone could have an IAP account under the name of John Doe at home, Jack Doe at work, Frank Doe by tethering his phone to his notebook computer and Fred Doe at his local library? Is it possible that a single individual has registered multiple times from the same home IP address masquerading as an entire family?
Does this mean that the 'entry forms' that Curtis spent time making is all for nought? Do people just email in their pictures rather than use the forms now?
The entry form is convenient for the contest chairpersons and I would like to see its use continued. If there is a problem with contest registration procedures than identify that problem so we can deal with it. If certain information is needed to efficiently administer an activity then identify the information that is needed and we can address it. We should not attempt to solve all possible or perceived problems by enforcing a broad, "one size fits all" rule because that rarely works. Don't deal with contest registration issues by piggy backing on a rule intended to discourage non-performance of contest participants. Instead, identify and address the contest registration issues
Who are we trying to accomodate - was this a huge issue last year? Did we have less entries because of it?
In my mind it is not a matter of accommodation. It is a matter of adjusting a rule that, in hindsight, overreaches the purpose for which it was intended. I don't know, nor do I believe anyone else knows how the rule impacted participation last year. The problem was, and remains, that there are individuals who enter contests such as PITHs, SegBox, Cast-A-Way Box, or other activities who do not do what they are supposed to do to allow the activity to continue to its planned conclusion. These individuals negatively impact other IAP members who send a pen but don't receive one, or they derail an activity spoiling the fun for everyone. The goal of that rule was, and is, to discourage the slackers from slacking. The theory is that if everyone knows who an individual is, or at least his name, he will be more motivated to do what he is supposed to do. This is the SOLE reason that the rule was enacted in the first place. It exists for no other reason. I can't even say it is working because my slacker list keeps growing with each activity. In hindsight the rule extends beyond the scope its intended purpose. It is overly broad. It places a requirement on a group of people who are not contributing to the problem that the rule is intended to address. Requiring a person who is not expected to do anything to follow a rule intended to motivate them to do something serves no purpose, makes no sense and is just another needless rule. I don't like needless rules, which is why I am adjusting this one. I'm narrowing the scope of the rule to impact only the group of people that contains the individuals who are the problem.
This was debated rather deeply last year - I don't think i understand the rationale behind why we'd reverse it this year.
We are not "reversing" it. We are tweaking it so it better targets the people it was intended to target.