Author: Eddie
Date: 10:38:23 12/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1998 at 13:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 20, 1998 at 05:16:27, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On December 20, 1998 at 04:12:57, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On December 20, 1998 at 03:14:03, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >>>>On December 20, 1998 at 02:02:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On December 19, 1998 at 23:27:24, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>There have been a number of messages recently pertaining to the moderator >>>>>>election, that have been posted by unknown members, usually using only a first >>>>>>name. >>>>>> >>>>>>Just for informational purposes, I would support restricting memberships to >>>>>>those who provide a full legitimate name, with a valid email address. And, >>>>>>mambers must show a track record of legitimate computer chess posts prior to >>>>>>posting on procedural issues. >>>>> >>>>>Actually, if you look into it further, you will discover that some of these >>>>>people have been using secondary email sites (I don't know what they are really >>>>>called), which let you make a new email address to order, effectively. >>>>> >>>>>The use of these things can cause a lot of problems here, for instance someone >>>>>can vote many times in the moderator election, and someone can attempt to >>>>>legitimize their viewpoint by agreeing with themselves, which is actually a very >>>>>powerful rhetorical tactic, as you'll know if you ever have it used on you. >>>>> >>>>>I think it is possible that this is happening in the "ChrisW Nomination Snow >>>>>Job" thread, where at least three "different" responders have been using these >>>>>things, and all have expressed similar viewpoints. >>>>> >>>>>I think it might be worthwhile to allow votes only from accounts established >>>>>before the election schedule became public, unless it is possible to reliably >>>>>detect users with multiple accounts. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>>Copyright (C) Bruce Moreland, 1998. All rights reserved. >>>> >>>>I would support the idea of allowing votes only from members who have had active >>>>accounts for at least 60 days. >>>> >>>>Will >>> >>>There are any number of reasonable suggestions, but now is perhaps not the best >>>time to be tinkering with the rule set. I'm not sure how it is really possibly >>>to enforce OPOV (one person, one vote) when people can have multiple accounts, >>>but it is probably worth a shot. But before we start from scratch, I think we >>>should clearly identify the rules that were in force for the previous election. >>> >>>ICD is the sponsor of the site, and perhaps these sorts of issues will require a >>>statement from them. Given the Christmas rush, perhaps ICD may prefer to >>>delegate dealing with this situation to the moderators? It seems that ICD is >>>content to host the site, and not really get involved too much in the details of >>>its governance, so long as the charter is upheld. (In general, this is probably >>>a good thing.) >>> >>>Some food for thought: >>> >>>Are there any authenticity checks performed on the names provided? (I don't >>>know, but I suspect not.) >>> >>>If not, how realistically can we say that OPOV is enforceable? (If the answer >>>to the first question is no, then the answer to this one is "not very".) >>> >>>Many people read the posts on-site, without posting themselves. Do they have >>>less of a right to determine the future moderation direction of this group? (I >>>think "clearly, no".) >>> >>>There's also this mix-up regarding Chris W., but I have never been a player in >>>what went on and how. I guess I will watch to see what shakes out on this one. >>> >>>Dave Gomboc >> >> >>I share Bruce's concern, and I think the danger is very real. I didn't think of >>this before, but now I think it's quite probable that if we would let Chris run, >>he would be supported by many new signups, all of whom would never be heard of >>again. >> >>Anyone who remembers the "Evans" family, and the "Steve" series, starring "Steve >>Blatchford", understand that this is not only possible, but has been done here >>before. It seems that yesterday we saw another wave of that. >> >>I propose to limit voting rights to people who were registered as members on the >>16th (last Wednesday). This is good enough for now. >> >>Amir > > >Personally I have long since "had it" with this anonymous junk anyway. I would >like to see a policy that simply outright rejects applications from known >remailers... Yes it would hurt a few... but I'd immediately reject hotmail.com >as one example, since you can create 100 id's there if you want to. If we only >accept applications from "real" domain names (ie aol.com is difficult to "trick" >since you have to pay to play there. Ditto for most places, although it would >be very difficult to enforce. > >This is just one example of how things go wrong. Does anybody remember >"thedodo" as one example? Or the "evans family" as another? It's a serious >problem. Maybe we need to resort to "paper votes" as most modern computer-based >organizations use. IE discuss it here, but physically send ballots to >verifiable addresses, since the post office won't deal with fakes very easily... >And since using a fake mail address is a Federal crime, it might make this work >a little cleaner? Yes of course, cleaner is great ..... I can do paper or email, it's all legit from me ..... thanks ....
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.