Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 New#KVRDeals

DC17?

dmbaer
KVRian
 
849 posts since 11 Nov, 2009, from Northern CA

Postby dmbaer; Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:15 pm Re: DC17?

whyterabbyt wrote:
dmbaer wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:Reread. I didnt the rules say 'no testing'. I said they say 'no public testing'. That rule even explain why it is a rule.


So, where are the rules posted?
...
I can't find them now

Its that hard to google 'KVR DC rules?'



Of course I know how to use google. I did in fact google "kvr dev challenge rules"

Yes, if you take sufficient time and examine things *very* closely, you will find an obscure link on one of the results that will take you finally to the rules. But before you make smart-assed derogatory comments about my capabilities, you might try the search you suggested before implying I'm incompetent. It's far from a direct route to find where the rules are actually posted.
dmbaer
KVRian
 
849 posts since 11 Nov, 2009, from Northern CA

Postby dmbaer; Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:30 pm Re: DC17?

whyterabbyt wrote:.
But really, unless it's clearly stated in the rules, how can anyone do beta testing without soliciting testers? If you ask for testers, you are doing something publicly.


Erm, no. Asking people to do something in private doesn't somehow make what they do public. And most developers will be familiar with what the difference is, even though you are not.


For your information, I have over 45 years of experience as a software engineer. I am quite familiar with the concept of beta testing. I am also familiar with the English language definition of "public" and "private". So please moderate your snide aspersions.

Here's the text of the rule on this subject:

Design and testing must be done in private - public beta testing is not allowed as this may affect the voting process.

So, are you saying that publicly soliciting beta testers for your entry is not public testing? That's certainly not the way I read it, but the rule isn't actually all that clear one way or the other. If publically soliciting beta testers is not permitted, then how is any developer new to this space supposed to get anything beta tested. How is that ensuring a level playing field? It definitely favors the established developers who have a private network of beta testers already in place.

As to what "public beta testing" actually means, that's not clear either. Unless you are capturing your testing session on video for youtube distribution, how can anyone test in public in the first place?
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25234 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:45 pm Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote:Yes, if you take sufficient time and examine things *very* closely, you will find an obscure link on one of the results that will take you finally to the rules.


Its the second link under the search I gave you.

But before you make smart-assed derogatory comments about my capabilities, you might try the search you suggested before implying I'm incompetent.


You think I gave you a link without checking it first?


It's far from a direct route to find where the rules are actually posted.


Uhuh, that second link to the main DC page must be a bitch to track down.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25234 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:11 pm Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote:For your information, I have over 45 years of experience as a software engineer. I am quite familiar with the concept of beta testing. I am also familiar with the English language definition of "public" and "private". So please moderate your snide aspersions.


And yet none of that prevented you conflating private testing and soliciting testers.

As to what "public beta testing" actually means, that's not clear either. Unless you are capturing your testing session on video for youtube distribution, how can anyone test in public in the first place?


Seriously? Despite claiming to know the difference between public and private, you cant see a difference?

So, are you saying that publicly soliciting beta testers for your entry is not public testing?


Soliciting testers isnt testing, full stop. Whether a given instance of either is public or private isnt going to change that.

Im really at a loss why someone would conflate the two things.

If publically soliciting beta testers is not permitted


Strawman. The only person who's said anything about soliciting testers is you, and noone has claimed its not permitted.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25234 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:19 pm Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote: I have a few ideas I believe will be new and unique in the this space. But it seems the rules dictate that I am not allowed to solicit beta testers for anything I develop. I do not have a private email list of potential beta testers. I would have to solicit for them here - publically, of course. So, I'm hardly motivated to take this any further.


You made that bit up in your own head, from nowhere, with no justification. The rules dictate nothing about how you arrange testers, only the fact that the testing itself needs to be done privately.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
slipstick
KVRist
 
135 posts since 2 Feb, 2017

Postby slipstick; Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:42 pm Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote: am a retired software engineer who now has time to consider writing some music production software for free distribution. I have a few ideas I believe will be new and unique in the this space. But it seems the rules dictate that I am not allowed to solicit beta testers for anything I develop. I do not have a private email list of potential beta testers. I would have to solicit for them here - publically, of course.

I checked the rules. They have nothing to say about how you arrange for testers. They say only that the testing itself should be in private. In other words the beta software to be tested should not be made publicly available and testing results and discussions should be in private i.e. between the developer and the testers only, not available to the general public.

Of course you are also perfectly able to produce whatever software you like, test it in any way you choose and distribute it for free to the whole community as and when. You can do all of that without entering any challenge. No-one will mind.

Steve
dmbaer
KVRian
 
849 posts since 11 Nov, 2009, from Northern CA

Postby dmbaer; Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:52 pm Re: DC17?

whyterabbyt wrote:Uhuh, that second link to the main DC page must be a bitch to track down.


Why do you insist on being so insulting? I came here with some reasonable questions.

However, with regard to your search recommendation. I found that link. I went to the page. The second time, looking more carefully, I found a link "the rules" - not easy to spot unless you knew it was there on a very long page.

Nevertheless, I clicked on it once I found it. It took me here:

The Grand Prize: Win a free trip to the 2017 NAMM Show in Anaheim, CA, USA
I agree to allow KVR Audio and NAMM to use my image for promotional purposes.
I also consent that I am submitting original material, of which I own all the rights.
I understand that event details are subject to change.
One winner will be selected from all entries for the Grand Prize, which includes airfare to and from Anaheim, CA for one person and one hotel room during the NAMM show, January 19-22, 2017.
. . .

Sure doesn't look like rules to me.
dmbaer
KVRian
 
849 posts since 11 Nov, 2009, from Northern CA

Postby dmbaer; Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:11 pm Re: DC17?

slipstick wrote:I checked the rules. They have nothing to say about how you arrange for testers. They say only that the testing itself should be in private. In other words the beta software to be tested should not be made publicly available and testing results and discussions should be in private i.e. between the developer and the testers only, not available to the general public.
Steve


The rules regarding testing are highly ambiguous. To me they imply that one may not publically solicit beta testers. Your interpretation is more reasonable, but like I said, the rules are really not very clear.

And this was my initial point. There is no published, officially-sanctioned mechanism I can find to solicit clarification from someone in authority to make a statement of clarification.

I posted a question a few months back about what was the rules had to say about when a piece of software specifically developed for the competition could be introduced. I got no response to that question, by the way. The rules actually say nothing specific. We only have:

Your entry must be an original creation made by you (your team / crew / company / family).

If somebody had actually answered a query like that, how is the person asking supposed to know if the response is correct, that someone in a position of authority is providing the information vs. someone just shooting off their mouth?

I'm not really sure why my comments are being interpreted as hostile. The thread (six pages worth) that I posted my just-mentioned question in can be found here:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=475640

It seems I'm not the only one to have confusion over the rules.
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25234 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:40 am Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:Uhuh, that second link to the main DC page must be a bitch to track down.


Why do you insist on being so insulting? I came here with some reasonable questions.


However, with regard to your search recommendation. I found that link. I went to the page. The second time, looking more carefully, I found a link "the rules" - not easy to spot unless you knew it was there on a very long page.

Nevertheless, I clicked on it once I found it. It took me here:

The Grand Prize: Win a free trip to the 2017 NAMM Show in Anaheim, CA, USA
I agree to allow KVR Audio and NAMM to use my image for promotional purposes.
I also consent that I am submitting original material, of which I own all the rights.
I understand that event details are subject to change.
One winner will be selected from all entries for the Grand Prize, which includes airfare to and from Anaheim, CA for one person and one hotel room during the NAMM show, January 19-22, 2017.
. . .

Sure doesn't look like rules to me.[/quote]

So the inlink link or section anchor is innacurate. :shrug:

I didnt look for any difficult-to-spot links, I just read trhoguh the whole of the page. Though a search for instances of 'rules' would have worked.

Try looking for the blue header that says 'Rules, Information, Guidelines, etc.'

You'll find the same section on the other year's DC pages too, without that pesky anchor issue to distract you.

http://www.kvraudio.com/kvr-developer-challenge/2014/
http://www.kvraudio.com/kvr-developer-challenge/2012/
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
25234 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:52 am Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote:The rules regarding testing are highly ambiguous.


No they're not, they're very explicit. They state that testing and design must be done privately. There's no ambiguity there at all.

To me they imply that one may not publically solicit beta testers.


No, not even slightly. Nothing even vaguely alludes to soliciting testers at all.

I find it incredibly odd that you've got here from there, especially since you started off with the strawman that I'd said was there was no testing before shifting to this one.
Your interpretations couldnt be far more opposite from what's been presented to you if you were doing so deliberately.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
dmbaer
KVRian
 
849 posts since 11 Nov, 2009, from Northern CA

Postby dmbaer; Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:25 am Re: DC17?

whyterabbyt wrote:Your interpretations couldnt be far more opposite from what's been presented to you if you were doing so deliberately.


I most certainly am not deliberately misinterpreting the testing rule. I found it to be very unclear and it seemed most reasonable to question it. The fact that you find it otherwise is no reason for your consistently insulting comments.

I did a google search looking for the rules. These are demonstrably difficult to find, and yet you felt justified in implying I was being either lazy or dense. Again there was no justification for your insulting responses.

So I'm done with this nonsense. Participation in the developer competition is clearly way more trouble than it's worth.
User avatar
EatMe
KVRist
 
125 posts since 9 Aug, 2013, from The Hague, The Netherlands

Postby EatMe; Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:22 pm Re: DC17?

My game works just fine.
I am just mentioning that I am accepting ideas of users.
Am I disqualified? And are you the grand jury not accepting denying access for no other reasons?
Not even a: Thank you for your interest in joining this competition. Welcome aboard.
Is there even a disambiguity between rules? I just make things. Glad I could help.
You may want to try a new game.
CinningBao
KVRAF
 
1688 posts since 15 Apr, 2004, from Capital City, UK

Postby CinningBao; Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:13 pm Re: DC17?

dmbaer wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:Your interpretations couldnt be far more opposite from what's been presented to you if you were doing so deliberately.


I most certainly am not deliberately misinterpreting the testing rule. I found it to be very unclear and it seemed most reasonable to question it. The fact that you find it otherwise is no reason for your consistently insulting comments.

I did a google search looking for the rules. These are demonstrably difficult to find, and yet you felt justified in implying I was being either lazy or dense. Again there was no justification for your insulting responses.

So I'm done with this nonsense. Participation in the developer competition is clearly way more trouble than it's worth.


Oh man, that is a shame. I've no idea what you could bring to the show, and I'm disheartened to hear you now won't bother. You've been on kvr for a few years; I would have thought you were now hardened to mr rabbyt's 'conversational style'.

He pops up quite a lot, with exactly the same attitude. Apparently he knows quite a lot and gets annoyed that others don't function, or manage/handle the world in the same way as he.

I'm sure he's very smart, and makes good music - I do not judge. And I expect he'll find some suitably clever retort to this post as well. It's all part of the game of life, interfacing with all the different kinds of possible personalities and degrees of functioning.

The hardest part is actually putting yourself in someone else's position and trying to see from their perspective. Especially those whose functioning is quite different from your own. Mr Rabbyt certainly tests alot of people's ability in that area! I'm sure he wouldn't knowingly deny this.

I'd suggest just getting on with your coding (I'm fascinated to see/hear what you have), doing what testing you can, and it sounds like, please correct me on this, as long as you say in the subject "looking for beta testers - nda required" or something along those lines you can easily garner a group of testers from a new post. Some may drop with disinterest but those who stay, stay.

I look forward to seeing what you've got, and I'm happy for you to PM me if you need an OSX tester.
Previous

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to KVR Developer Challenge Chat