"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

47d82884@news.povray.org...
> 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.

One possibility would be to get rid of Technical/Artistic/Conceptual 
mentions altogether but entitle the panel judges to award mentions on 
whatever criteria they want, like the "special mentions" in the Cannes Film 
Festival.
For instance one entrant in the POVCOMP was a little girl. It was difficult 
to rank her image with the rest but on the other hand her image had a real 
value (for instance it showed that POV-Ray and Moray could be used for 
educational purpose, even with young children). I also remember several IRTC 
entries created with self-made raytracers.
A "special mentions" system would allow the jury to reward images that would 
be significant in some way or another, in fact for any reason that could 
have a particular value beside the overall image quality.

Ideally, voters should be able to have their say here too but I'm not really 
sure of the correct method to do that. There could be some sort of 
"flagging" system associated with tags, for instance. Images that would be 
flagged by enough people for similar reasons could then receive special 
awards.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.47d8368e5c79dc2573e406e60@news.povray.org...

> 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.

     Was that the reason for pulling out? The above that you mention is 
designed *not* to happen, but if you say it has happened, then can you show 
me where or how? <email me if you want, you know my address>

>
> 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.

      You should ignore Flaming Forums(tm). I do. Seen it myself many many 
times, as much as anyone else here has too probably. Read them, yes, but 
just ignore them.

   Best regards Mike,

       Steve

>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
 > It would be neat if in the image submission process, the entrant
could (via
> some click-through legalese) agree that the competition admins may, at
> their discretion, choose to grant third-party requests for non-commercial
> use of their entry if reasonable attempts to contact them fail*. Or have it
> the other way around; make this a default condition of registration/entry
> and require them to opt out of it if they do not wish to do so.

I have to agree with Gilles, it's too vague just like that. While a lot
of us POV-Ray users seem happy to share macros, textures, and final
pictures, I've gotten the impression from some other graphics forums
that the sentiment doesn't carry over to the larger commercial software.
Having the default be to allow third-party use might scare off some
users who do graphics for their professional work as well, since there
is then the large company's question of whether they can use that work
or not if they hire that person.*

Having the licenses be optional would be nice. Offers the best of both
worlds. So would allowing a link to the creator's home page where they
might provide more information about licensing the picture. But that
opens up the possibility of having those pages turned to spam at a later
date.

*It's not a good question from the corporations, but look at the FUD
about the GPL and CC licenses that keeps getting printed. It won't scare
off anyone who knows better, but it may scare off the people who don't
want to read all of the licenses.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> David Buck wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> It would probably be a wise move in any event.  If you were to win and 
>> the IRTC admins decide to send out prizes (T-shirts, mugs, posters, etc) 
>> they'd need to know where to send them to.
> 
> Of course we could always ask at the time. Honestly, provision of an
> address is not deterrent for someone who wants to cheat since they'd just
> make one up. However, that said, I think a contact address should be
> provided, but for a different reason.
> 
> Do you know how *frustrating* it is to have someone contact you to ask
> permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to refuse
> because you can't contact the author?
> 
> I do [:-(

Has no one else moved in the last 10 years? I've lived in at least three
different places, and trying to use any but the current address would
probably result in "return to sender". While it's a nice idea, other
then prizes, what does it actually solve?

> I'd also suggest that if entrants have a 'private' email address that they
> don't give out to the public but don't mind giving to the admins, that they
> do so as well, via the registration system. One that they are less likely
> to change, for example.
> 

This sounds like a good idea. However, again, 10 years ago I had an
email address that was 'private' and only given out to a few people. The
company that offered it went under about 8 years ago, and that address
is gone. The domain still exists, but I have no idea who is on the
receiving end of any email sent there and trusting that unknown person
with the authorization to release an image to a company is slightly
scary to me.

Public key signatures could prevent that, but that's another layer of
information to 'require' just to keep you from having to say 'No' to
someone who wants the image.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

> Has no one else moved in the last 10 years? I've lived in at least three
> different places, and trying to use any but the current address would
> probably result in "return to sender". While it's a nice idea, other
> then prizes, what does it actually solve?


addresses in six different countries. The only stability has been keeping the
same mobile phone number and email address for the last eight years. Hence the

Post a reply to this message

>       - A voter must rank all images (except their own)
>    - Every voter must provide a comment on each image they vote on

What happens if a large number of images are submitted, say 100, 200, 500 
etc?  How many people will be prepared to spend the time to sit down and 
look, vote and comment on that many images?

On a related note, it should be as easy and fast as possible to vote on 
images using the web.  eg You choose what resolution pictures you want to 
see, then each image is shown to you in turn with boxes at the bottom to 
select your score and enter your comments.  And it should be possible to 
come back later and continue voting before finally clicking the "submit my 
votes" button.

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> writes:

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

Clearly any data gathering needs to distinguish the private address
from the public address (perhaps even "none").

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer### [at] stonehengecom> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Post a reply to this message