David Buck wrote:

>    - Voters don't see who submitted the image until voting is finished

There are some artists whose views in p.o-t are enormously unpopular, 
and the low esteem the consequently enjoy may spill over into the voting.

On the other hand, some artists don't need their names on their work in 
order to be identifiable.

>    - Every voter must provide a comment on each image they vote on
>       - Voting is a privilege and a responsibility
>       - Providing constructive comments helps everyone
>       - The submitters put a lot of effort into their work, the
>          voters should respect that with appropriate comments

Granted, although comments will often be rote entries unless a human 
being reviews the comments.

> Does this sound reasonable?

It all looks fine to me, not much different from the old rules.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> 
wrote in message news:47d6615d@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason wrote:
>> permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to 
>> refuse
>
> [following up to self to clarify]
>
> not technically 'refuse', since I don't have the right to give 
> permission
> in any event (except in certain very specific circumstances). so 
> while I
> can't actually 'refuse', it still feels like it when I say I 
> can't help;[

I think it would be trivial to include some option fields in the
registration/entry form that presents options such as:

do you reply to all permission to use requests with NO
contact info: xxx xxx

etc. - simple response engine incorporating above parameters

lots of permutations there - as long as a db is being used
it might be wise to use it

Post a reply to this message

Given Gilles' graph, I suggest:

1) A simple scale of 1 to 10.
2) Everyone gets to nominate one image for an honorable mention of Artistic,
Technical, Theme, etc.  Entrants can win more than one, but voters must choose
a separate entry for each mention.
3) Forcing comments will elicit poorly-thought-out comments.  So don't.


As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were some
countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and phone
number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they are of
age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a decade
I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the way.

I would encourage the kind of folks that Paul Bourke was getting as judges to
register as voters.  I think it would be cool to have some people with taste
who don't necessarily know that much about ray tracing.

Post a reply to this message

Nimish Ajmani wrote:
> If I were to write said disclaimer, it would be "A home address is optional, but
> if provided, will only be used to mail you a prize in the case of winning a
> round.  This information may be provided later, if you wish"

Why is everyone focusing on the "prize" aspect, when we don't even know 
that there will *be* prizes, and it has been repeatedly stated that the 
*contact* information is for *contacting* people?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47d71dff5c79dc258ff951eb0@news.povray.org...
>
>
> As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were 
> some
> countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and 
> phone
> number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they 
> are of
> age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a 
> decade
> I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the 
> way.
>
IMO, it is not only a question concerning minors, it is just a question of 
privacy. My phone number, for instance is not available publicly here by 
deliberate choice.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
> news:web.47d71dff5c79dc258ff951eb0@news.povray.org...
>>
>> As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were 
>> some
>> countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and 
>> phone
>> number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they 
>> are of
>> age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a 
>> decade
>> I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the 
>> way.
>>
> IMO, it is not only a question concerning minors, it is just a question of 
> privacy. My phone number, for instance is not available publicly here by 
> deliberate choice.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 

I've come to agree with the privacy concerns.  Even though the intent 
was always to keep that information private and visible only to IRTC 
admins, it does cause too many privacy concerns.

I will make the section optional and add a note explaining that it is 
optional and how it would be used if provided.

E-mail confirmation will be required.

David

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is

> the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I provided to
> the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used privately by
> the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my address

Can you give me an example of this with respect to the IRTC?

To my recollection the IRTC had no 'private' information in the submission
process. I'm curious to know what it is that you say has turned up that
should not have.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> schreef in bericht 
news:47d7b11b$1@news.povray.org...

>
> I've come to agree with the privacy concerns.  Even though the intent was 
> always to keep that information private and visible only to IRTC admins, 
> it does cause too many privacy concerns.
>
> I will make the section optional and add a note explaining that it is 
> optional and how it would be used if provided.
>
> E-mail confirmation will be required.
>

Fine. Thank you indeed David. I think this answers the concern.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Fa3ien wrote:

>>>    - Ranking will be in 3 categories
>>
>> Seen Gille's latest post on the matter ?
>> Seen the graphs ?
>>
>> Why keep the voting process 3 times longer than necessary ?
>>
>> Fabien.
> 
> Yes, I've seen the post and the graphs.  I thought carefully about the 
> charts and the graphs.  Here's my problem:  Currently we have 6 awards - 
> 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Technical, Artistic and Concept.  Do we continue to give 
> 6 awards?  We can reduce to one ranking per picture if we drop the last 
> 3 awards. If you want to provide the last three (automated) awards, how 
> do you propose we award them with only one rank?

I would suggest to make 1st, 2nd and 3rd awards automatic, based on a
single note for each image/voter, and use a small jury (3 or 4 people) 
to award the T-A-C mentions.

The "cross-contamination" "problem" has been discussed so many times
over the years, and
1) there's no solution
2) it tends to show that the TAC separation is pretty artificial

There is no "granularity" to be gained from TAC, so, going for simple
and efficient seems the best to me.

> I'm looking for constructive comments on the voting system.  Please, if 
> you're going to criticize something I proposed please offer your version 
> of an alternative.  As I said, I can't satisfy everyone and I'm doing my 
> best to get public input while still keeping the spirit of the competition.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was suggesting a single note.
Hope I've been clearer now.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> Mike the Elder wrote:
> > Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is

> > the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I provided to
> > the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used privately by
> > the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my address
>
> Can you give me an example of this with respect to the IRTC?
>
> To my recollection the IRTC had no 'private' information in the submission
> process. I'm curious to know what it is that you say has turned up that
> should not have.
>
> -- Chris


In the case of the IRTC proper, (and this may be the result of my not having
read carefully enough) my actual first name and last name turns up in the
results and, consequently, my entries turn up in a in a Google search of my
name.  ( a fairly minimal exposure to potentially malicious activities on the
part of those so inclined I grant you)

In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which I use
for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics contacts... .i.e. not a "throw
away") turns up alongside my name.

Although I try not to be the "paranoid sort" with regard to life in general,
I've seen SO MUCH pettiness, vindictiveness and all around nastiness on the
Internet, that I've (reluctantly) adopted the practice of going to relative
extremes when it comes to maintaining my privacy in public forums.  I did NOT
mean to imply that the IRTC has acted irresponsibly in this regard, only to
urge those involved in setting up the new IRTC to take privacy issues
seriously.  Thanks for your concerned reply.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message