I formally request Kaggle's legal department view on the disqualification for not uploading a model and the fact it was an internal decision not included in the rules and not properly communicated to the participants through the rules update:
\n\nIt was not included in the rules (binding agreement between participants and Kaggle) https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules
\n\nIt was not included in the FAQ https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq
\n\n\n\n\n\n \nWill I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do submit in the second stage?\n\nYes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\nentirely.
\n
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
\n\nI've also written my view elsewhere, but since the issue is becoming very important, and admins do not respond to the community requests, I decided to open a separate thread and kindly await for Kaggle's legal department clarification.
\n\nEdit : Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all.
", "messages": [ { "id": "317817", "postDate": "04/22/2018 16:02:14", "content": "I formally request Kaggle's legal department view on the disqualification for not uploading a model and the fact it was an internal decision not included in the rules and not properly communicated to the participants through the rules update:
\n\nIt was not included in the rules (binding agreement between participants and Kaggle) https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules
\n\nIt was not included in the FAQ https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq
\n\n\n\n\n\n \nWill I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do submit in the second stage?\n\nYes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\nentirely.
\n
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
\n\nI've also written my view elsewhere, but since the issue is becoming very important, and admins do not respond to the community requests, I decided to open a separate thread and kindly await for Kaggle's legal department clarification.
\n\nEdit : Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all.
", "rawMarkdown": "I formally request Kaggle's legal department view on the disqualification for not uploading a model and the fact it was an internal decision not included in the rules and not properly communicated to the participants through the rules update: \n\nIt was not included in the rules (binding agreement between participants and Kaggle) [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][1]\n\nIt was not included in the FAQ [https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq][2]\n\n> Will I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do submit in the second stage?\n> \n> Yes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n> entirely.\n\nEx post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).\n\nI've also written my view elsewhere, but since the issue is becoming very important, and admins do not respond to the community requests, I decided to open a separate thread and kindly await for Kaggle's legal department clarification.\n\nEdit : Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update [Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement][3]. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all. \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules\n [2]: https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq\n [3]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/discussion/55228", "votes": null }, { "id": "317902", "postDate": "04/22/2018 19:46:45", "content": "While I agree that removing these competitors when they were told they would not be removed is a serious breach of trust by Kaggle, I don't think it's a legal issue.
\n\nKaggle is not the US government, kaggle rules are not federal or state laws, and removal from the leaderboard is not a legal penalty.
\n\nIMO trying to make this a legal issue weakens your case here.
", "rawMarkdown": "While I agree that removing these competitors when they were told they would not be removed is a serious breach of trust by Kaggle, I don't think it's a legal issue.\n\nKaggle is not the US government, kaggle rules are not federal or state laws, and removal from the leaderboard is not a legal penalty. \n\nIMO trying to make this a legal issue weakens your case here.", "votes": null }, { "id": "317907", "postDate": "04/22/2018 20:07:51", "content": "@anokas I'm not a lawyer, I referenced the Ex post facto laws to emphasize on the unfairness of decisions taken retrospectively, which is outlined in the United States Constitution, since the rules https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules are governed by California law (state law).\nAs for the legal issue weakening my case, allow me to disagree. Besides, the admins do not seem to have responded to a vast number of Community comments, expressing their disagreement, made before this thread was opened. And after all the rules https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules is the only binding agreement between us and Kaggle, if that was not the case then Kaggle would not make us sign a Rule agreement before taking part at each competition.
", "rawMarkdown": "anokas I'm not a lawyer, I referenced the Ex post facto laws to emphasize on the unfairness of decisions taken retrospectively, which is outlined in the United States Constitution, since the rules [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][1] are governed by California law (state law).\nAs for the legal issue weakening my case, allow me to disagree. Besides, the admins do not seem to have responded to a vast number of Community comments, expressing their disagreement, made before this thread was opened. And after all the rules [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][2] is the only binding agreement between us and Kaggle, if that was not the case then Kaggle would not make us sign a Rule agreement before taking part at each competition.\n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules\n [2]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules", "votes": null }, { "id": "317908", "postDate": "04/22/2018 20:09:01", "content": "I agree that this is very unfair on the competitors. I presume Kaggle is deciding on a solution internally, so hopefully they respond to the community soon.
", "rawMarkdown": "I agree that this is very unfair on the competitors. I presume Kaggle is deciding on a solution internally, so hopefully they respond to the community soon.", "votes": null }, { "id": "317910", "postDate": "04/22/2018 20:22:38", "content": "I don't think it's a legal issue, to be honest. What do the aforementioned articles cover? I assume they only cover competitions with monetary prizes, and in this competition the rules were clear about prize positioning. I doubt any old competition would be covered under the laws, so I'm not sure legal action can be taken.
", "rawMarkdown": "I don't think it's a legal issue, to be honest. What do the aforementioned articles cover? I assume they only cover competitions with monetary prizes, and in this competition the rules were clear about prize positioning. I doubt any old competition would be covered under the laws, so I'm not sure legal action can be taken.", "votes": null }, { "id": "318080", "postDate": "04/23/2018 06:52:15", "content": "@gavrand, the FAQ you point to does contain this:
\n\n\n\n\nThe spirit of having a second stage is to prevent hand labeling and leaderboard probing of the test data. In order to achieve this, we ask that you upload your source code, including the correct parameters that you used for generating your submission files. This is for you to prove that you have written automated code to create your final submission(s). These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition and claim prizes.
\n \nTo ensure that you did write code to produce your results, you are requested to upload your model. To do this, you can go to \"More->Team->Your Model\" and upload an archive of your code. It is necessary to zip everything as a single file. Please note that this upload link becomes unavailable after the deadline of stage 1, so you will need to upload it before the end of stage 1.
\n
This is a quite clear obligation, isn't it? It says you have to upload your code (aka model) before end of stage 1.
\n\nThe issue is that it also contains the piece you quote, which contracts what I quote.
\n\nMy point is that people keep quoting the piece that suits them, then pretend that what I quote does not exist. This approach undermines any claim that Kaggle team is wrong.
", "rawMarkdown": "gavrand, the FAQ you point to does contain this:\n\n> The spirit of having a second stage is to prevent hand labeling and leaderboard probing of the test data. In order to achieve this, we ask that you upload your source code, including the correct parameters that you used for generating your submission files. This is for you to prove that you have written automated code to create your final submission(s). These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition and claim prizes.\n\n> To ensure that you did write code to produce your results, you are requested to upload your model. To do this, you can go to \"More->Team->Your Model\" and upload an archive of your code. It is necessary to zip everything as a single file. Please note that this upload link becomes unavailable after the deadline of stage 1, so you will need to upload it before the end of stage 1.\n\nThis is a quite clear obligation, isn't it? It says you have to upload your code (aka model) before end of stage 1. \n\nThe issue is that it also contains the piece you quote, which contracts what I quote.\n\nMy point is that people keep quoting the piece that suits them, then pretend that what I quote does not exist. This approach undermines any claim that Kaggle team is wrong.", "votes": null }, { "id": "318084", "postDate": "04/23/2018 07:04:29", "content": "@CPMP your quote just defines the code upload procedure for those who want to be prize eligible
\n\n\n\n\nThese \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the\n competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition\n and claim prizes.
\n
For those who only want the ranking points and medals at the same FAQ there is the quote I have included
\n\n\n\n\nWill I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do\n submit in the second stage?
\n \nYes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize\n position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n entirely.
\n
Your \"quoting the piece that suits them\" seems more suitable to your case . And 'd rather we continued such a conversation on the other threads and leave this thread for the legal department's view on this.
", "rawMarkdown": "CPMP your quote just defines the code upload procedure for those who want to be prize eligible\n\n> These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the\n> competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition\n> and claim prizes.\n\nFor those who only want the ranking points and medals at the same FAQ there is the quote I have included\n\n> Will I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do\n> submit in the second stage?\n> \n> Yes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize\n> position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n> entirely.\n\nYour \"quoting the piece that suits them\" seems more suitable to your case . And 'd rather we continued such a conversation on the other threads and leave this thread for the legal department's view on this.", "votes": null }, { "id": "318106", "postDate": "04/23/2018 07:38:56", "content": "I try to help you, but I'm giving up. Good luck.
", "rawMarkdown": "I try to help you, but I'm giving up. Good luck.", "votes": null }, { "id": "318578", "postDate": "04/24/2018 05:13:40", "content": "Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all.
", "rawMarkdown": "Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update [Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement][1]. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all. \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/discussion/55228", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 317902, "author_name": "anokas", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/22/2018 19:46:45", "content": "While I agree that removing these competitors when they were told they would not be removed is a serious breach of trust by Kaggle, I don't think it's a legal issue.
\n\nKaggle is not the US government, kaggle rules are not federal or state laws, and removal from the leaderboard is not a legal penalty.
\n\nIMO trying to make this a legal issue weakens your case here.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 317907, "author_name": "agavranis", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/22/2018 20:07:51", "content": "@anokas I'm not a lawyer, I referenced the Ex post facto laws to emphasize on the unfairness of decisions taken retrospectively, which is outlined in the United States Constitution, since the rules https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules are governed by California law (state law).\nAs for the legal issue weakening my case, allow me to disagree. Besides, the admins do not seem to have responded to a vast number of Community comments, expressing their disagreement, made before this thread was opened. And after all the rules https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules is the only binding agreement between us and Kaggle, if that was not the case then Kaggle would not make us sign a Rule agreement before taking part at each competition.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 317908, "author_name": "anokas", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/22/2018 20:09:01", "content": "I agree that this is very unfair on the competitors. I presume Kaggle is deciding on a solution internally, so hopefully they respond to the community soon.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 317910, "author_name": "antmarakis", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/22/2018 20:22:38", "content": "I don't think it's a legal issue, to be honest. What do the aforementioned articles cover? I assume they only cover competitions with monetary prizes, and in this competition the rules were clear about prize positioning. I doubt any old competition would be covered under the laws, so I'm not sure legal action can be taken.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 318080, "author_name": "cpmpml", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/23/2018 06:52:15", "content": "@gavrand, the FAQ you point to does contain this:
\n\n\n\n\nThe spirit of having a second stage is to prevent hand labeling and leaderboard probing of the test data. In order to achieve this, we ask that you upload your source code, including the correct parameters that you used for generating your submission files. This is for you to prove that you have written automated code to create your final submission(s). These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition and claim prizes.
\n \nTo ensure that you did write code to produce your results, you are requested to upload your model. To do this, you can go to \"More->Team->Your Model\" and upload an archive of your code. It is necessary to zip everything as a single file. Please note that this upload link becomes unavailable after the deadline of stage 1, so you will need to upload it before the end of stage 1.
\n
This is a quite clear obligation, isn't it? It says you have to upload your code (aka model) before end of stage 1.
\n\nThe issue is that it also contains the piece you quote, which contracts what I quote.
\n\nMy point is that people keep quoting the piece that suits them, then pretend that what I quote does not exist. This approach undermines any claim that Kaggle team is wrong.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 318084, "author_name": "agavranis", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/23/2018 07:04:29", "content": "@CPMP your quote just defines the code upload procedure for those who want to be prize eligible
\n\n\n\n\nThese \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the\n competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition\n and claim prizes.
\n
For those who only want the ranking points and medals at the same FAQ there is the quote I have included
\n\n\n\n\nWill I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do\n submit in the second stage?
\n \nYes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize\n position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n entirely.
\n
Your \"quoting the piece that suits them\" seems more suitable to your case . And 'd rather we continued such a conversation on the other threads and leave this thread for the legal department's view on this.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 318106, "author_name": "cpmpml", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/23/2018 07:38:56", "content": "I try to help you, but I'm giving up. Good luck.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 318578, "author_name": "agavranis", "author_url": "", "post_date": "04/24/2018 05:13:40", "content": "Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "317817": "I formally request Kaggle's legal department view on the disqualification for not uploading a model and the fact it was an internal decision not included in the rules and not properly communicated to the participants through the rules update: \n\nIt was not included in the rules (binding agreement between participants and Kaggle) [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][1]\n\nIt was not included in the FAQ [https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq][2]\n\n> Will I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do submit in the second stage?\n> \n> Yes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n> entirely.\n\nEx post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).\n\nI've also written my view elsewhere, but since the issue is becoming very important, and admins do not respond to the community requests, I decided to open a separate thread and kindly await for Kaggle's legal department clarification.\n\nEdit : Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update [Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement][3]. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all. \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules\n [2]: https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq\n [3]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/discussion/55228", "317902": "While I agree that removing these competitors when they were told they would not be removed is a serious breach of trust by Kaggle, I don't think it's a legal issue.\n\nKaggle is not the US government, kaggle rules are not federal or state laws, and removal from the leaderboard is not a legal penalty. \n\nIMO trying to make this a legal issue weakens your case here.", "317907": "anokas I'm not a lawyer, I referenced the Ex post facto laws to emphasize on the unfairness of decisions taken retrospectively, which is outlined in the United States Constitution, since the rules [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][1] are governed by California law (state law).\nAs for the legal issue weakening my case, allow me to disagree. Besides, the admins do not seem to have responded to a vast number of Community comments, expressing their disagreement, made before this thread was opened. And after all the rules [https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules][2] is the only binding agreement between us and Kaggle, if that was not the case then Kaggle would not make us sign a Rule agreement before taking part at each competition.\n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules\n [2]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/rules", "317908": "I agree that this is very unfair on the competitors. I presume Kaggle is deciding on a solution internally, so hopefully they respond to the community soon.", "317910": "I don't think it's a legal issue, to be honest. What do the aforementioned articles cover? I assume they only cover competitions with monetary prizes, and in this competition the rules were clear about prize positioning. I doubt any old competition would be covered under the laws, so I'm not sure legal action can be taken.", "318080": "gavrand, the FAQ you point to does contain this:\n\n> The spirit of having a second stage is to prevent hand labeling and leaderboard probing of the test data. In order to achieve this, we ask that you upload your source code, including the correct parameters that you used for generating your submission files. This is for you to prove that you have written automated code to create your final submission(s). These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition and claim prizes.\n\n> To ensure that you did write code to produce your results, you are requested to upload your model. To do this, you can go to \"More->Team->Your Model\" and upload an archive of your code. It is necessary to zip everything as a single file. Please note that this upload link becomes unavailable after the deadline of stage 1, so you will need to upload it before the end of stage 1.\n\nThis is a quite clear obligation, isn't it? It says you have to upload your code (aka model) before end of stage 1. \n\nThe issue is that it also contains the piece you quote, which contracts what I quote.\n\nMy point is that people keep quoting the piece that suits them, then pretend that what I quote does not exist. This approach undermines any claim that Kaggle team is wrong.", "318084": "CPMP your quote just defines the code upload procedure for those who want to be prize eligible\n\n> These \"models\" that you submit may be examined by Kaggle and the\n> competition host to determine your eligibility to win the competition\n> and claim prizes.\n\nFor those who only want the ranking points and medals at the same FAQ there is the quote I have included\n\n> Will I still be on the leaderboard if I don't upload a model but do\n> submit in the second stage?\n> \n> Yes. However, if you do not upload a model and finish in a prize\n> position, your team will be removed from the competition standings\n> entirely.\n\nYour \"quoting the piece that suits them\" seems more suitable to your case . And 'd rather we continued such a conversation on the other threads and leave this thread for the legal department's view on this.", "318106": "I try to help you, but I'm giving up. Good luck.", "318578": "Maggie from Customer Success at Kaggle has provided an update [Change of Course - Leaderboard Reinstatement][1]. Since Kaggle seems to have acknowledged the unfairness of the disqualification for those not uploading a model and not finishing at prize winning positions, there is no need for any legal department's view. We are waiting for the reinstatement. This is the way it should be done, through internal decisions. Kaggle is a community and trust is above all. \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/c/data-science-bowl-2018/discussion/55228" }, "source": "meta" }