Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 18:05:37 12/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1998 at 10:28:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 20, 1998 at 18:23:57, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >>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? >> >>As far at hotmail is concerned, I agree with you - we both had this bad >>experience with Mr. xyz some time ago. >>In general, you target the supposed bad - and hit the brave ones, as well. >>Just like Eddie, for example - where it needed Steve's word, to take the man out >>of the negative - for - nothing discussion. >>To make it as easy as possible : >>I've been called " ELVIS " for 28 years now - most times I sign contracts in >>music business with " ELVIS " - >>who's the one who wanted to discuss the useage of this Acronym with me, for >>example ? >>On the other hand, if someone asks for my name with sense, he'll get it - no >>doubts.......and if you read this carefully, I'm sure you'll recognize the prob. >> >>DPordzik >>a.k.a. ELVIS > >Your case is an interesting one. But notice I haven't said much about "handles" >as everyone knows who "Komputer Korner" is. But crossing the line to make the >handle intentionally anonymous to defraud others of their votes doesn't sound >good. And is something that needs control. > >I have no problem with "handles" here, just so the handles trace back to a real >email address that someone can confirm as legitimate. To prevent the Sean Evans >fiasco from happening again. IE our polls mean *nothing* now, since he could >have voted nearly 100 times for the choice(s) he favored... > >That's the part of this I have a big problem with.. That's an interesting suspicion - and a real outrageous one, as well. Somehow I haven't got the slightest doubts, that this Mr. would do so - yet : as far as I know - there is a cut up to members, in the club at Dec. 16th - so, worries about fakes should get a little more relative - at least, I hope so. Keep rockin' DPordzik a.k.a. ELVIS
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.