The Yodeling Veterinarian of the Alps wrote:
> 
> I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used models
> taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without attribution in the
> .txt file, which is required by the contest rules.  The animation in
> question didn't win anything.
> 
> What's going to be done as a consequence of this?  As I see things,
> these options are available:
> 
> 1)  Do nothing.  This is unfair to the people who submitted only their
> own work, and to those who gave credit where credit was due.
> 
> 2)  Handicap the score awarded by the judges.  Subtract a flat amount
> from the artist's score.  Still might not be fair, especially since it
> will still influence the judges' perceptions of the other entrants.
> 
> 3)  Disqualify the animation.  Specifically, leave the submission on
> the viewing page, but disallow any votes to be made for it.  Good and
> fair, except that again it has the same problem as option two.
> 
> 4)  Delete the animation from the IRTC server.  Pretend it never
> happened.  This prevents tainted work from influencing the vote.
> 
> I leave this up to further deabte.
> 

I wouldn't like the issue 4 : Afterall, even if the models were taken
 from somewhere, the animation might be original.

Obviously issue 1 is not the right solution. Unless the omission was
not intentional. 

I would go a for something between 2 and 3, and yet more radical :
 allow vote and comment on all entries, but then disqualify
 the offending entry from any prizes (including merits, not only first
  place) and give it the last rank (whatever its score).
 It would still drag the quality up, showing what can be done to
 all the people, but their would be no benefit for the author
 (and keeping the entries will remind them forever what may
 have been their score and the great impression they did, if only
 they haven't cheated...)

 Of course the offense must be verified before applying such 
 a punition. I think for an animation, it may apply to the main 
 character but a tolerance should exist for a small secondary object 
 whose appearence is only during a small part of the movie.

Or do you intend to inforce a zero-tolerance ? What if the author
 just forget to write that the framed picture in the corridor,
 which is seen only during 1/20 of the movie, was taken from
 a demo-scene of the POV distribution, whereas s/he has given
 credit for about twenty macros and about fifty objects ?

Post a reply to this message