Policy Change -- Sockpuppets & Reputation System

[Mark]

The purpose of this poll is provide feedback for Scott, to determine if there are enough members that feel that the negative impact of sockpuppets warrants action. This proposed change of policy would reduce the occurrence, effectiveness, and persistence of sockpuppet accounts and eliminate certain abuse of the reputation system.

Of the 1770+ membership, there are 1108 members with zero posts - referred to hereinafter as "silent members". It is likely that the majority of these memberships were created solely to access Community Buzz, but who knows how many of them might be sockpuppets.

Any member's sockpuppet account with a reputation of "None" can be used to punch their own "legitimate" account's Greenie and give themselves 4 points, or punch the Red of an "enemy" and take away 3 points. Multiple accounts magnify the effect.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/faq.php#47
[The designation on forum topic pages and user profile pages is "None". In the FAQ, it's "No Reputation".]

* * * * *

The following changes should thwart both current and future sockpuppets;

1) Most of the stockpiled sockpuppets would likely be eliminated by deleting the accounts of all users that have zero posts.

This would nullify all ratings that have been given by all current silent member accounts, both sockpuppet and legitimate.

Legitimate silent members that would get caught up in this purge would need to re-register. Of the several hundred silent members that registered more than one year ago, only 24 have logged-in during the past 12 months. There are probably a few more that only log-in once in a blue moon. I think few, if any, would mind the minor inconvenience.

As a side note: Of the 1108 silent members, there are 313 member accounts that have a "Last Visit" status of "Never". Every one of them was created after October 2010.


2) Adjust the reputation rating multipliers to Zero for members whose reputation is "None" or lower.

A member would need to acquire at least an "Acknowledged" rating before being able to affect the system.


3) Modify the Memberlist Page so it will show member reputations.

A membership with a single-digit post count that inexplicably sprouts a reputation above "None" should be suspect. This change would facilitate the policy of a user-policed forum and allow Scott to continue moderating with a minimum of interaction, by allowing members to easily spot and report such activity.

Another side note: There are 256 members that have posted 1-5 times, 103 of which created their accounts after October 2010. Of these 256, only 32 have logged-in during the past 12 months. Several of these low-count posts are nonsensical, non-contributing, or just plain spam - many of which were left un-moderated.
Opinion: While all 256 could be picked through and selectively deleted for the sake of thoroughness, very few of these members have a reputation rating above "None". I see no need for tedious overkill.

* * * * *

N.B. - When one member red-dots another member, it also counts against the member giving the rating. In the case where a number of members red-dot a nuisance in order to highlight the need to ban him, I would like to know if they get their points restored when the nuisance's account is banned, deactivated, or deleted.

Numbers stated were accurate yesterday.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

===== Don't forget to vote !! =====

eta - tl;dr version is further down the page. :-)

[Mark]

I ran this proposal by Scott three years ago via PM. It was just changes #1 and #2..... #3 was added later. At that time, there had been a lot of noise generated by Mr.'s Wilson and Lindgaard. I did not post this issue as a Poll then because I decided to pigeonhole it. The forum had quieted down, and there was a possibility of a new discussion board opening soon. There were just over 1500 members then.

--------------------

REPLY --

From: scott
To: Mark
Posted: 16th June 2013, 16:32
Subject: Re: Policy / Sockpuppets / Reputation system

Thanks for the suggestions, Mark. I'm not sure I want to make any changes like this unilaterally. Maybe you can post these ideas as a new topic with a poll and get feedback from other users? If there's enough support then I would be open to changes.
Best,
Scott

[ovyyus]

Revoke rep system privileges for zero post members.

[eccentrically1]

I don't think a reputation system is necessary at all. Don't most other forums just have a moderator?
What difference does it make to have a rep system? It doesn't seem to be productive to me. If it's counter-productive, then it would make sense to get rid of it. We should all just be equal members. No one is better or worse at finding the solution to perpetual motion than anyone else.

[daxwc]

I don't think a reputation system is necessary at all. Don't most other forums just have a moderator?

The reality is our moderator is too busy, therefore we need to police ourselves just like a democratic society. My opinion revoke the rep system privileges for zero post members. Make zero green dot people unable to vote and put the rest of us at one dot and start over.

[eccentrically1]

But we don't need a reputation to police ourselves, the dots don't have any bearing on self policing. When anyone makes egregious posts, it doesn't matter how many dots either the poster or the postee has, the posts are flagged and scott checks in and bans them.

[daxwc]

That doesn’t work well because why would Scott want to look at every infraction in a world of drama queens?

That isn’t self-policing; the dot system at least lets the community make the final judgement.

[daxwc]

Anyway, I am not voting till I hear all arguments. Mark what time limit did you put on the poll?

[eccentrically1]

That doesn’t work well because why would Scott want to look at every infraction in a world of drama queens?

That isn’t self-policing; the dot system at least lets the community make the final judgement.

the dot system doesn't preclude the community from making a judgement.
The community makes the judgement based on the forum rules, if enough of the community flags a member, then scott would be alerted and make the final moderator judgement. The dots don't enter into that process. The dots only separate us in a grade school popularity contest fashion.

[daxwc]

One thing I did hate about the dot system was as soon as a member hits 3 red dots (or whatever it is) they should be automatically banned and Scott shouldn’t have to look at the issue a month later.

[james.lindgard]

But we don't need a reputation to police ourselves, the dots don't have any bearing on self policing. When anyone makes egregious posts, it doesn't matter how many dots either the poster or the postee has, the posts are flagged and scott checks in and bans them.

I can show where one 5 green dot member would routinely discredit Bessler's drawings. I think that shows how well the rating system works.
After all, Bessler shows a lot in his drawings and yet they are rarely discussed. Kind of why I post along the lines of what he showed. In that sense, I am a sock puppet.

edited to change content

edited to add; I did have a respected member once tell me that I run it for you guys by building. What he told me was that no one really cares to realize how Bessler's wheels worked. That would explain why I've been banned so many times for being a fraud or a sock puppet. I think that's funny. After all, I think I've been the only person to learn his drawings.
So I probably should take a break until I can build.

[Mark]

[TL;DR version]

If this change of policy is supported by the membership and implemented by Scott;

a) Stockpiled sockpuppet accounts, and all their past influence, would be wiped out. Any new sockpuppets would be impotent.

b) Silent members and members with no-reputation would no longer be able to vote reputation, eliminating the possibility of disruptive or malicious members boosting their own rating, decreasing other members ratings, or counteracting red dots, by simply creating additional accounts.

c) Having to earn a reputation to be able to vote a reputation would increase the effectiveness of user-policed moderation, by making it strictly peer-based.

d) The very small percentage of legitimate silent members that continue to follow along with the board, would need to re-register - a minor inconvenience.

Scott has no desire to waste his time moderating this board full time. Most people have no problem with that, since he has been kind enough to sponsor this board for many years, out of his own pocket (!!) and with the help of whatever donations he receives from appreciative members.

[Mark]

Mark what time limit did you put on the poll?

I had set it at 90 days, but I 'think' I cleared that out. Doesn't matter, I figure that when Scott makes a decision - one way or the other - he can just lock the topic.

[ovyyus]

Mark, I voted yes for your suggested changes and the clean up. Any other vote would favour those who rort the system. It will be interesting to see how some members reps might change after non posting members are taken out of the equation.

[Mark]

Thanks, Bill. For voting, and making me look up a word I'd never seen before. Rort the system, good way to put it. And yeah, interesting indeed, with a dash of hilarious.

btw, when I saw your first reply I read it as a question. I got all defensive, started to write a retort. Then realized it was a period at the end, not a question mark. LOL