Policy Change -- Sockpuppets & Reputation System

[Mark]

...and dismembered in the process.

Put a meat cleaver in my hand, and .........

LOL

[WaltzCee]

. . .
2) The rep reset was entirely Scott's idea, no one suggested it.

this is what I was looking for:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 965#144965

. . .Make zero green dot people unable to vote and put the rest of us at one dot and start over.

I knew it wasn't true there was no discussion about resetting reps.

I thought I was going crazy but then I know that can't be true. I'm already there.

ETA: :) yeah, I guess. . .

[ME]

Seems to be solved.

[jim_mich]

Of course the poll [not "pole'] caused Scott to make changes, that was it's purpose.

Mark, you and I both know that the correct spelling is "poll", and that I simply typed the wrong spelling, So why make a point of it? Simple to denigrate me. This is the type of behavior that I find repulsive.

As was my original complaint, it was YOUR poll that instigated Scott to make the changes. Which you now admit that it was your poll that set thing in motion, which caused everyone to loose all their past reputation points.


.

[ME]

...and dismembered in the process.

Put a meat cleaver in my hand, and .........

LOL

Ouch.... Mark, I know words can be confusing but, don't edit your own post !

[WaltzCee]

When you used the word "pole" I thought you were talking about Mark bending the forum over and ph@#$ing everything up.

in a figurative manner. I thought it was funny.

Ouch.... Mark, I know words can be confusing but, don't edit your own post !

I get it. What the heck, Mark! Go for it.

[jim_mich]

Oh, and thanks, Mark, for the red dot. I'm now busted back done to no reputation.

Edited: And now back up to one green dot.

[Mark]

Poll vs pole was a friendly correction, Jim.

Yes, Jim, the poll set things in motion. And the first domino is responsible for the last domino's fall. Indirectly!
Jeez, you sure do love splitting hairs, don't you?

--------

Walt, thank you. I stand corrected. I apologize for my error.
Everyone at one dot would be a reset. :-/
I got so caught up in the argument, I didn't see it.

See, Jim? It's Daxwc's fault. - LOL

[Mark]

Oh, and thanks, Mark, for the red dot.

There you go, assuming again. And you are mistaken.

Oh, wait... you didn't say it was me, did you?

Never-mind.....


walks away, mumbling - -> everything's my fault, even if I didn't do it... man!

[WaltzCee]

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.

When I first read this, it brought to mind a "pole" tax and making this idea:

All members are equal.

even less true.

It was already false.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

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. :-)

So these changes was put into action, to get rid of sock puppets? Mark it looks to me that you have given the sock puppets a great victory, at the cost of members reputations, which is something the sock puppet could not have done without your help.

There are many people that gave this forum good input, some of which may have past away, I do not think it is right to take away peoples reputations who are not in a position to win it back. how can someone who does not post very much get there reputation back.

One last question, how many member are there here, and how many people voted for change, as it stands at the time of this post, there is a total of 12 votes for change and 8 votes not to change , and six of those votes may have even of come from sock puppet.

In short, I am only saying you could of shot your self in the foot and helped the sock puppets.

[agor95]

There is an ancient and noble reputation system that has stood the test of time.

However to become a master of the system needs practice.

It's system code is PUB.

Also it needs a good healthy understanding of Banter.

Good Luck

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

I will drink to that!

[Mark]

Trevor,

The changes that I proposed and put up for vote in the poll were not actualized by Scott, despite the results of the poll - which was cut short by him.

Scott decided to go with two suggestions that were made in other member's comments.

As to empowering sockpuppets, you might want to read the last half of my comments in this post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 682#145682

[ME]

What we actually want (which is perhaps huge to implement) is to flag (relevant/irrelevant) by post and topic and some added filter function.
It would imply a member-rep, plus one could more easily re-read a topic without the nonsense.
Or perhaps even better (when Scott feels inspired): flag for good-build, good-math, good-advice, good-in-general, good-trolling.

Unfortunately we only have one dot per member.
I imagine Scott's thought was: just rebuild all your ******* rep's again if you feel it's so important.

Ah.. hear, hear! time for beer.