Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Countering votebombs

kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM, kohai wrote:
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?

If everyone votes normal and Con is fairly 14 points ahead and then two people come and vote bomb all 7 points to tie it, that should be countered. Making it a tie does not fix the problem, only lessens it.
My manwich!
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:38:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM, kohai wrote:
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?

Don't do that. If you try to make it a tie then that negates legitimate votes that were cast before the votebomb. Just counter the votebomb.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM, kohai wrote:
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?

Please repeal your vote on my debate. I was winning and several credible votes were cast in my favor. The vote bomb was cast and the counter bomb was as well. Stop being a vigilante and trying tie up debates. You are simply causing more problems.

The votebomb was negated and there is no reason to act any further.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:43:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:40:38 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM, kohai wrote:
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?

Please repeal your vote on my debate. I was winning and several credible votes were cast in my favor. The vote bomb was cast and the counter bomb was as well. Stop being a vigilante and trying tie up debates. You are simply causing more problems.

The votebomb was negated and there is no reason to act any further.
As requested, my vote was removed.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:44:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:43:33 PM, kohai wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:40:38 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM, kohai wrote:
I have seen many people counter vote bombs.
I would like to suggest a rule when countering. This rule is to make it as close to a tie as possible.

When I counter, I always make it a tied debate or as close to a tie as possible. This way, the votes after can be fresh as if it were 0 to 0

What do you guys think about this?

Please repeal your vote on my debate. I was winning and several credible votes were cast in my favor. The vote bomb was cast and the counter bomb was as well. Stop being a vigilante and trying tie up debates. You are simply causing more problems.

The votebomb was negated and there is no reason to act any further.
As requested, my vote was removed.

Thanks
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive.

Explain how negating a clear votebomb is counterproductive?

The only scenario I can see is if the mods remove the votes of the bomber then those who countered it forget to change it back thereby votebombing themselves.

However the mods have banned several users for votebombing, and forgotten to remove their votes which are still there months later.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:07:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:50:56 PM, askbob wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive.

Explain how negating a clear votebomb is counterproductive?

The only scenario I can see is if the mods remove the votes of the bomber then those who countered it forget to change it back thereby votebombing themselves.

That is one reason.

However the mods have banned several users for votebombing, and forgotten to remove their votes which are still there months later.

If enough people just vote honestly in the first place votebombing of the nature isn't a big enough problem. One guy gives seven points. A same group of friends votes for eachother? There's plenty of people that are here that can vote.

Then report the votes/accounts on go on.

We both know the dynamics of serious votebombing. What we see now is NOTHING compared to back then. If you push too many people too far you may end up with the same problem.

What you do now and what you did then only added fuel to the flames. Remember gregthedestoyer? You posted something he said in another thread. You alone gave the CWO a dedicated votebombed.

Every vote against you in this election? YOU alone won that vote against you.

Right or wrong it is the simple truth. You do more damage then you do good in this area. You do great in other areas, but in this one you fail. I hope you continue to do what you do in certain areas, your friggin great at organizing games and coming up with awesome mafia plots.

But you need to leave the moderation up to the owners, they are the ONLY ones that can do anything about it.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:24:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:07:22 PM, jharry wrote:
If enough people just vote honestly in the first place votebombing of the nature isn't a big enough problem.

Problem is that most people might give 1 or 2 points net to a player where a votebomber typically gives 7 making it so that one would need 5 or 6 legit votes to counter out 1 vote bomb.

Then report the votes/accounts on go on.

You cannot report a vote although I'm working to that implemented.

We both know the dynamics of serious votebombing. What we see now is NOTHING compared to back then. If you push too many people too far you may end up with the same problem.

This is true, but I am unclear of your "push too many people too far" reference.


What you do now and what you did then only added fuel to the flames. Remember gregthedestoyer? You posted something he said in another thread. You alone gave the CWO a dedicated votebombed.

I also found out his personal info, humiliated him and he left the site.

Every vote against you in this election? YOU alone won that vote against you.

I don't see the relevance of this statement.

Right or wrong it is the simple truth. You do more damage then you do good in this area. You do great in other areas, but in this one you fail. I hope you continue to do what you do in certain areas, your friggin great at organizing games and coming up with awesome mafia plots.

But you need to leave the moderation up to the owners, they are the ONLY ones that can do anything about it.

You have no logic to back up any of your accusations.
You also have never played any mafia games.
Also I think i'm a better judge of fixing problems then you are josh.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:24:09 PM, askbob wrote:
At 5/30/2011 4:07:22 PM, jharry wrote:
If enough people just vote honestly in the first place votebombing of the nature isn't a big enough problem.

Problem is that most people might give 1 or 2 points net to a player where a votebomber typically gives 7 making it so that one would need 5 or 6 legit votes to counter out 1 vote bomb.

So three people vote honestly? Is it really that hard to take ten minutes to vote on some obvious debates?

Then report the votes/accounts on go on.

You cannot report a vote although I'm working to that implemented.

You can report votes, it takes one pm.

We both know the dynamics of serious votebombing. What we see now is NOTHING compared to back then. If you push too many people too far you may end up with the same problem.

This is true, but I am unclear of your "push too many people too far" reference.

You make it too easy to get people to go against you. Greg is just one of many.


What you do now and what you did then only added fuel to the flames. Remember gregthedestoyer? You posted something he said in another thread. You alone gave the CWO a dedicated votebombed.

I also found out his personal info, humiliated him and he left the site.

No he didn't. He stayed and voted bombed the chit out of you. And anyone else.

Every vote against you in this election? YOU alone won that vote against you.

I don't see the relevance of this statement.

It is an example of what you do everyday. I have dozens of pms where people literally say "askbob is a d1ck, you have my support and vote".

Right or wrong it is the simple truth. You do more damage then you do good in this area. You do great in other areas, but in this one you fail. I hope you continue to do what you do in certain areas, your friggin great at organizing games and coming up with awesome mafia plots.

But you need to leave the moderation up to the owners, they are the ONLY ones that can do anything about it.

You have no logic to back up any of your accusations.

The people are stacking up against you as we speak. They will vote against you on the election. The same people that were tired of your terrorism voted againsts you in your debates.
You also have never played any mafia games.

True, but I have been told by many people. And it doesn't surprise me that you would be good at it, you are a very smart and imaginative person.
Also I think i'm a better judge of fixing problems then you are josh.

Lol, ok.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:45:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I honestly don't give a shitt josh, and I'm sick of you bullshitting around about a bunch of nonsense. You scummed up the site for a year and made about half of the legitimate intelligent users leave out of frustration and now you're trying to ruffle my feathers about correcting obvious votebombs and chasing off spammers and votebombers? GTFO and take your bullshitt with you.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 11:01:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:45:58 PM, askbob wrote:
I honestly don't give a shitt josh, and I'm sick of you bullshitting around about a bunch of nonsense.

Lol, nice dodging and ducking. When will you realize that no one cares about all that crap back then. And you bringing it up is only something for me to get a laugh. Do you completely forget we have talked before?

You scummed up the site for a year and made about half of the legitimate intelligent users leave out of frustration

Yeah I did that. And? Do you really think anyone cares any more? It's time to let the past go. And coming from you it is pathetic that you keep bringing it up.

and now you're trying to ruffle my feathers

Lol, do you actually say that in real life? Does anyone even say that any more? I've been gentle bob, very gentle.

about correcting obvious votebombs and chasing off spammers and votebombers?

Oh, I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion. Too bad you can't respond to it, oh yeah you do respond. Lmao, ad hom counts I guess.

GTFO and take your bullshitt with you.

Hahaha, does that actually work? How about this, you can GTFO if you dont like it. I ain't going anywhere.

Now, you couldn't chase away the cheapest of trolls. Thegodhand keeps coming back. Charleslb is still here. Lovelife,Freedo and insertnamehere are still here. Since you utterly incapable of doing the only thing that makes you feel good about yourself you want to remove the spam thread. Lol, the only thing you can claim is what the mods do, the problem is you are the only one that does because you are the only one that is really peeved about it. Or it's the only thing done people praise you for.

The only people that leave are tired of your endless insults and ridicule. I'm sure you won't find them worthy if staying but that doesn't really matter. Most people just want to have conversations, you may or may not approve of the conversations but honestly your judgment of it doesn't matter.

Ill tell you what, I would be more then happy if you if can respond with something more then crap no one cares about or more "you're retarded" or "fagg0" I can do that to. But if you would like to talk about this I'm willing to talk about it.

Just don't get your tail feathers all ruffled. Or your panties in a wad. Lol.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 10:02:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

Putting someone in prison is kidnapping them and holding them hostage. It's simply justified. If I grab you and lock you in an 8x10 closet, it's kidnapping. If the government grabs me and locks me in an 8x10 cell, it's also kidnapping.


I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If the mods would remove the vote bombs, that would be better. But they don't, and if they do, I'll send a PM to get the VB corrections removed as well.


If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

Then they will have to go through another 3 spam debates, which will be easily enough corrected. Then they have to do it again, and again, and eventually they'll get caught for multi-accounting and banned.

The point is to make it difficult enough that they don't have the motivation to do it (too much work, not enough reward).


In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".

Simply saying "vote more" doesn't do jack to solve the problem. It's like telling a poor person "make more money" and walking away. Voting more is one of the best ways to counter votebombers, as they usually don't target debates that they cannot swing with a single vote, but do you have any ideas to motivate people to "vote more"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 11:01:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 10:02:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

Putting someone in prison is kidnapping them and holding them hostage. It's simply justified. If I grab you and lock you in an 8x10 closet, it's kidnapping. If the government grabs me and locks me in an 8x10 cell, it's also kidnapping.

Still not exactly the same. Putting the kidnaper in prison is more like perm ip ban. "Correcting" votebombing is more like kidnaping the kidnapers loved one. Yeah you got "justice" but you haven't solved the original problem. More people voting is the only fail safe solution.


I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If the mods would remove the vote bombs, that would be better. But they don't, and if they do, I'll send a PM to get the VB corrections removed as well.

Why do twice the work? Report the bad vote once and be done with it.


If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

Then they will have to go through another 3 spam debates, which will be easily enough corrected. Then they have to do it again, and again, and eventually they'll get caught for multi-accounting and banned.

And the ones that don't multi? Or come back? Then you have to continually search for spam debates. When you could spend the same amount if time simply biting in the first place.

The point is to make it difficult enough that they don't have the motivation to do it (too much work, not enough reward).

At that can't be achieved without mod intervention. So why not save the time and go there first? Or just vote more.


In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".

Simply saying "vote more" doesn't do jack to solve the problem. It's like telling a poor person "make more money" and walking away. Voting more is one of the best ways to counter votebombers, as they usually don't target debates that they cannot swing with a single vote, but do you have any ideas to motivate people to "vote more"?

I would agree if it were the same issue. If I were telling someone to work more if they were working three jobs already. I'm suggesting that the guy who sits on his tail all do should do more work, instead of complaining when he is hungry.

It really doesn't take much to place a dozen votes. It is even easier when someone doesn't respond in three out of four arguments.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 11:27:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 11:01:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 10:02:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

Putting someone in prison is kidnapping them and holding them hostage. It's simply justified. If I grab you and lock you in an 8x10 closet, it's kidnapping. If the government grabs me and locks me in an 8x10 cell, it's also kidnapping.

Still not exactly the same. Putting the kidnaper in prison is more like perm ip ban. "Correcting" votebombing is more like kidnaping the kidnapers loved one. Yeah you got "justice" but you haven't solved the original problem. More people voting is the only fail safe solution.

You may not have "solved" the problem, but you've undone the damage caused by it. It's like taking medicene to fight symptoms rather than the disease. I'll take that if it is the only option.



I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If the mods would remove the vote bombs, that would be better. But they don't, and if they do, I'll send a PM to get the VB corrections removed as well.

Why do twice the work? Report the bad vote once and be done with it.

Because reporting the bad vote doesn't undo the damage, countering it does.



If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

Then they will have to go through another 3 spam debates, which will be easily enough corrected. Then they have to do it again, and again, and eventually they'll get caught for multi-accounting and banned.

And the ones that don't multi? Or come back? Then you have to continually search for spam debates. When you could spend the same amount if time simply biting in the first place.

If they aren't multi's then they will only do it once. If they are creating account after account after account, they are, by definition, mutlis. And you don't have to search for spam debates, just counter them when they decide to bomb.


The point is to make it difficult enough that they don't have the motivation to do it (too much work, not enough reward).

At that can't be achieved without mod intervention. So why not save the time and go there first? Or just vote more.

Actually, it can without mod intervention. It may not be 100% perfect (nothing is), but votebombing is far below what it use to be.



In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".

Simply saying "vote more" doesn't do jack to solve the problem. It's like telling a poor person "make more money" and walking away. Voting more is one of the best ways to counter votebombers, as they usually don't target debates that they cannot swing with a single vote, but do you have any ideas to motivate people to "vote more"?

I would agree if it were the same issue. If I were telling someone to work more if they were working three jobs already. I'm suggesting that the guy who sits on his tail all do should do more work, instead of complaining when he is hungry.

Well, I guess since I do vote on debates, as do many people here, you are telling those that currently do work instead of those that do not.


It really doesn't take much to place a dozen votes. It is even easier when someone doesn't respond in three out of four arguments.

Forfeited debates don't show up in the recently finished. Also, the debates that are worse votebombed, are those that you put alot of effort into, not those that you made one argument and your opponent forfeited through. And those take a lot of time to read, check sources, and make sure you remember it all. It's not like you can accurately pop through a 4 round 8,000 character per round debate in 5 minutes and get an accurate understanding of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 11:46:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 11:27:48 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 11:01:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 10:02:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

Putting someone in prison is kidnapping them and holding them hostage. It's simply justified. If I grab you and lock you in an 8x10 closet, it's kidnapping. If the government grabs me and locks me in an 8x10 cell, it's also kidnapping.

Still not exactly the same. Putting the kidnaper in prison is more like perm ip ban. "Correcting" votebombing is more like kidnaping the kidnapers loved one. Yeah you got "justice" but you haven't solved the original problem. More people voting is the only fail safe solution.

You may not have "solved" the problem, but you've undone the damage caused by it. It's like taking medicene to fight symptoms rather than the disease. I'll take that if it is the only option.

If the medicine has other side effects you may help one problem but create more. "Correcting" votebombing causes more work and it can start more fires then it puts out.



I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If the mods would remove the vote bombs, that would be better. But they don't, and if they do, I'll send a PM to get the VB corrections removed as well.

Why do twice the work? Report the bad vote once and be done with it.

Because reporting the bad vote doesn't undo the damage, countering it does.

And so does simply voting more.



If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

Then they will have to go through another 3 spam debates, which will be easily enough corrected. Then they have to do it again, and again, and eventually they'll get caught for multi-accounting and banned.

And the ones that don't multi? Or come back? Then you have to continually search for spam debates. When you could spend the same amount if time simply biting in the first place.

If they aren't multi's then they will only do it once. If they are creating account after account after account, they are, by definition, mutlis. And you don't have to search for spam debates, just counter them when they decide to bomb.

Then you have the problem with spam debates choking the debate page. It's like taking a drug to ease the discomfort of a disease but it makes you go blind as a side effect. It doesn't make good sense. You wouldn't do that, you would go for and embrace the best method with the least side effects.


The point is to make it difficult enough that they don't have the motivation to do it (too much work, not enough reward).

At that can't be achieved without mod intervention. So why not save the time and go there first? Or just vote more.

Actually, it can without mod intervention. It may not be 100% perfect (nothing is), but votebombing is far below what it use to be.

I can assure you of one thing, without active moderation vigilante moderation is less the effective. Do you need a history lesson. ;)



In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".

Simply saying "vote more" doesn't do jack to solve the problem. It's like telling a poor person "make more money" and walking away. Voting more is one of the best ways to counter votebombers, as they usually don't target debates that they cannot swing with a single vote, but do you have any ideas to motivate people to "vote more"?

I would agree if it were the same issue. If I were telling someone to work more if they were working three jobs already. I'm suggesting that the guy who sits on his tail all do should do more work, instead of complaining when he is hungry.

Well, I guess since I do vote on debates, as do many people here, you are telling those that currently do work instead of those that do not.

This is an open forum, no this one thread won't tell everyone. It has to be a change at the site culture level. The most active,popular,respected members must take the initiative. It will never be solved by more rules or "correcting" votebombing.


It really doesn't take much to place a dozen votes. It is even easier when someone doesn't respond in three out of four arguments.

Forfeited debates don't show up in the recently finished. Also, the debates that are worse votebombed, are those that you put alot of effort into, not those that you made one argument and your opponent forfeited through. And those take a lot of time to read, check sources, and make sure you remember it all. It's not like you can accurately pop through a 4 round 8,000 character per round debate in 5 minutes and get an accurate understanding of it.

Wait a minute. Do you read the debates you "correct"?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 11:54:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 11:46:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 11:27:48 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 11:01:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 10:02:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:44:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 9:19:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:38 PM, jharry wrote:
Here's a crazy idea.

Read the flipping debate and then vote honestly.

Votebombing wouldn't be an issue if people would just frigging vote in the first place.

Countering votebombs with votebombs is counter productive. And it is nothing more then votebombing.

It doesn't take two minutes to read a debate when one debaters doesn't finish the debate.

I know this is a crazy idea because some egos are bigger then others.

That's like saying we shouldn't arrest kidnappers. A countering VB corrects the issue, not makes it worse. Sure, it would be great if more people voted so that single VB did not make a difference, but we've been trying to get that done for a very long time.

Actually it's not saying that.

If someone kidnaps someone do we kidnap in return? Correcting votebombs is the same thing.

Putting someone in prison is kidnapping them and holding them hostage. It's simply justified. If I grab you and lock you in an 8x10 closet, it's kidnapping. If the government grabs me and locks me in an 8x10 cell, it's also kidnapping.

Still not exactly the same. Putting the kidnaper in prison is more like perm ip ban. "Correcting" votebombing is more like kidnaping the kidnapers loved one. Yeah you got "justice" but you haven't solved the original problem. More people voting is the only fail safe solution.

You may not have "solved" the problem, but you've undone the damage caused by it. It's like taking medicene to fight symptoms rather than the disease. I'll take that if it is the only option.

If the medicine has other side effects you may help one problem but create more. "Correcting" votebombing causes more work and it can start more fires then it puts out.

Not really. Correcting votebombs takes little work at all, since you don't need to actually read the debate. You can correct 10 votebombs in 3 minutes (as someone has done for me).




I'm not saying the mods should let it go on, but it is a slippery slope. Votebombing always has and always will be an issue here, as long as the majority of people don't vote on a regular basis.

If the mods would remove the vote bombs, that would be better. But they don't, and if they do, I'll send a PM to get the VB corrections removed as well.

Why do twice the work? Report the bad vote once and be done with it.

Because reporting the bad vote doesn't undo the damage, countering it does.

And so does simply voting more.

Voting more does not stop the problem, it only waters it down to the point it is tolerable.




If someone is determined enough to win or make you lose once do you think that determination will end if you "correct" the vote? Most likely they will make another account and vote again.

Then they will have to go through another 3 spam debates, which will be easily enough corrected. Then they have to do it again, and again, and eventually they'll get caught for multi-accounting and banned.

And the ones that don't multi? Or come back? Then you have to continually search for spam debates. When you could spend the same amount if time simply biting in the first place.

If they aren't multi's then they will only do it once. If they are creating account after account after account, they are, by definition, mutlis. And you don't have to search for spam debates, just counter them when they decide to bomb.

Then you have the problem with spam debates choking the debate page. It's like taking a drug to ease the discomfort of a disease but it makes you go blind as a side effect. It doesn't make good sense. You wouldn't do that, you would go for and embrace the best method with the least side effects.

There is no side effect to countering VBs. It doesn't make you go blind.



The point is to make it difficult enough that they don't have the motivation to do it (too much work, not enough reward).

At that can't be achieved without mod intervention. So why not save the time and go there first? Or just vote more.

Actually, it can without mod intervention. It may not be 100% perfect (nothing is), but votebombing is far below what it use to be.

I can assure you of one thing, without active moderation vigilante moderation is less the effective. Do you need a history lesson. ;)

individual vigilantism was a major problem. The membership forming a militia in self-defense is a social construct, and is entirly different. Active moderation would be best, but that is not within our power, so we have to do the next best.




In either case of votebombing/correcting the debate will rest on one or a few persons. It will be won or losses by the whims of a few.

When someone complains about votebombing the reply should be "vote more".

Simply saying "vote more" doesn't do jack to solve the problem. It's like telling a poor person "make more money" and walking away. Voting more is one of the best ways to counter votebombers, as they usually don't target debates that they cannot swing with a single vote, but do you have any ideas to motivate people to "vote more"?

I would agree if it were the same issue. If I were telling someone to work more if they were working three jobs already. I'm suggesting that the guy who sits on his tail all do should do more work, instead of complaining when he is hungry.

Well, I guess since I do vote on debates, as do many people here, you are telling those that currently do work instead of those that do not.

This is an open forum, no this one thread won't tell everyone. It has to be a change at the site culture level. The most active,popular,respected members must take the initiative. It will never be solved by more rules or "correcting" votebombing.

And it will not be solved by simply saying "vote more." It does take a change in the mindset, but saying "vote more" does nothing to change the mindset.



It really doesn't take much to place a dozen votes. It is even easier when someone doesn't respond in three out of four arguments.

Forfeited debates don't show up in the recently finished. Also, the debates that are worse votebombed, are those that you put alot of effort into, not those that you made one argument and your opponent forfeited through. And those take a lot of time to read, check sources, and make sure you remember it all. It's not like you can accurately pop through a 4 round 8,000 character per round debate in 5 minutes and get an accurate understanding of it.

Wait a minute. Do you read the debates you "correct"?

Sometimes, out of curiosity. But countering a VB is not about the debate, but about the vote. So I only read the vote.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

Yes, because countering the votebomb has nothing to do with the actual debate. If it is person A vs person B, and I think A won, and someone votebombed for A (they put "votebomb" in their RFD), I will still counter for B, even though I think A won.


If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

There is no "report vote" option. I do report the votes though through PMs with the staff. And if the votes are removed, I'll remove my correction. If the votes are removed from one of my debates, I'll send a PM to the person that did the correction on my debate, thanking them for their assitance and letting them know that they can remove the correction.


Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.

Never said it did, it is just a sign that it is likely a vote bomb. The person's history on DDO is also a factor.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 1:27:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:56:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

Yes, because countering the votebomb has nothing to do with the actual debate. If it is person A vs person B, and I think A won, and someone votebombed for A (they put "votebomb" in their RFD), I will still counter for B, even though I think A won.

What is the difference between your "correcting" vote and the vote your trying to correct? Neither have anything to do with debate. Both seem to be nothing more then spite. You honestly would vote against the honest winner of the debate just stop someone from saying votebomb? Where is the line? Where do you stop? What if you disagree with someones RFD? Will you votebomb that too? The problem with vigilante mods is there are no clear lines, it is soley up to the vigilante. And that us a slippery slope.

Example. Askbob is a known wanna be vigilante. But he goes to far. You might agree with what he does this one time nut what about the next terriorist attack? Or the next one.



If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

There is no "report vote" option. I do report the votes though through PMs with the staff. And if the votes are removed, I'll remove my correction. If the votes are removed from one of my debates, I'll send a PM to the person that did the correction on my debate, thanking them for their assitance and letting them know that they can remove the correction.

And what if you forget? Let's say you voted on 15 debates to counter one votebomber, say it's 30. And let's say you voted against the clear winner just to counter a vote they doesn't even matter. Are you sure you will remember every vote in every debate?

Maybe you can contact the staff to correct your mistake, but you could have contacted the staff just as easy the first time, dunce there is no report vote option. Voting unfairly for ANY reason is ALWAYS a bad idea. Voting without reading the debate is dangerous every time.


Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.

Never said it did, it is just a sign that it is likely a vote bomb. The person's history on DDO is also a factor.

Did jar2187 have a history of votebombing?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 2:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 1:27:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:56:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

Yes, because countering the votebomb has nothing to do with the actual debate. If it is person A vs person B, and I think A won, and someone votebombed for A (they put "votebomb" in their RFD), I will still counter for B, even though I think A won.

What is the difference between your "correcting" vote and the vote your trying to correct? Neither have anything to do with debate. Both seem to be nothing more then spite. You honestly would vote against the honest winner of the debate just stop someone from saying votebomb? Where is the line? Where do you stop? What if you disagree with someones RFD? Will you votebomb that too? The problem with vigilante mods is there are no clear lines, it is soley up to the vigilante. And that us a slippery slope.

The difference is the reasoning for the actions. It is true that they both have nothing to do with the debate, but they neutralize each other out as far as how they effect the debate.

If someone was winning, then they should be winning when the VBs have been neutralized. If, after only legitimate votes have been counted, they are not winning, then claiming that they should be winning may only be a personal opinion.


Example. Askbob is a known wanna be vigilante. But he goes to far. You might agree with what he does this one time nut what about the next terriorist attack? Or the next one.

And the community can call that out as not okay, or the mods can to provide checks and balances. So far, neither the community, nor (more importantly) the staff have said that countering votebombs are not allowed (hard to say that the VBs are allowed, but not the counters).





If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

There is no "report vote" option. I do report the votes though through PMs with the staff. And if the votes are removed, I'll remove my correction. If the votes are removed from one of my debates, I'll send a PM to the person that did the correction on my debate, thanking them for their assitance and letting them know that they can remove the correction.

And what if you forget? Let's say you voted on 15 debates to counter one votebomber, say it's 30. And let's say you voted against the clear winner just to counter a vote they doesn't even matter. Are you sure you will remember every vote in every debate?

No, but that is no reason to do nothing. Worse case is that that vote is removed, and my counter is left (thus making it a vote bomb). The net result is 1 votebomb on the debate, which is equal to what it started with. So the more I remember the better it is, the more I forget, the more neutral it is, but it won't have a negative impact.


Maybe you can contact the staff to correct your mistake, but you could have contacted the staff just as easy the first time, dunce there is no report vote option. Voting unfairly for ANY reason is ALWAYS a bad idea. Voting without reading the debate is dangerous every time.

I've already contacted staff. If they remove the vote bombs on my debates, then I'll contact those that did the counter. I only find votebombs when someone makes a post about it, so if the VB is removed, I trust that they will let me know.



Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.

Never said it did, it is just a sign that it is likely a vote bomb. The person's history on DDO is also a factor.

Did jar2187 have a history of votebombing?

He's VB against me something like 12 times over the weekend, and VB'd for me once before. I saw that he VB'd several other debates as well over the weekend. Unfortunately, there is no time-effective method to find what debates jar2187 has voted on (or what anyone has voted on for that matter). This has also be brough before the staff, and it has been said by the staff that they will remedy it several times, though nothing has been done yet.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 3:07:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 2:29:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
Just a question, but do you even vote on debates?

I dont have voting rights, I figured it would be for the best.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 3:17:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 2:05:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 1:27:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:56:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

Yes, because countering the votebomb has nothing to do with the actual debate. If it is person A vs person B, and I think A won, and someone votebombed for A (they put "votebomb" in their RFD), I will still counter for B, even though I think A won.

What is the difference between your "correcting" vote and the vote your trying to correct? Neither have anything to do with debate. Both seem to be nothing more then spite. You honestly would vote against the honest winner of the debate just stop someone from saying votebomb? Where is the line? Where do you stop? What if you disagree with someones RFD? Will you votebomb that too? The problem with vigilante mods is there are no clear lines, it is soley up to the vigilante. And that us a slippery slope.

The difference is the reasoning for the actions. It is true that they both have nothing to do with the debate, but they neutralize each other out as far as how they effect the debate.

What, someone voted unfairly in a debate (in your opinion) and you vote unfairly so there unfair vote doesn't count?

If someone was winning, then they should be winning when the VBs have been neutralized. If, after only legitimate votes have been counted, they are not winning, then claiming that they should be winning may only be a personal opinion.

So if no one voted in a certain debate. Con clearly won. Three people voted for con saying "vote bomb" as a RFD. You and three others vite for pro to "counter" the vote bombs. Now the mod removes 14 points from con because it was reported. Now pro is winning and he doesn't deserve it. Slippery slope.



Example. Askbob is a known wanna be vigilante. But he goes to far. You might agree with what he does this one time nut what about the next terriorist attack? Or the next one.

And the community can call that out as not okay, or the mods can to provide checks and balances. So far, neither the community, nor (more importantly) the staff have said that countering votebombs are not allowed (hard to say that the VBs are allowed, but not the counters).

But that is the problem with viglante moderators. If the mod makes no call then there is no balance. And then it gets out of control. Division is increased and the site dies.





If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

There is no "report vote" option. I do report the votes though through PMs with the staff. And if the votes are removed, I'll remove my correction. If the votes are removed from one of my debates, I'll send a PM to the person that did the correction on my debate, thanking them for their assitance and letting them know that they can remove the correction.

And what if you forget? Let's say you voted on 15 debates to counter one votebomber, say it's 30. And let's say you voted against the clear winner just to counter a vote they doesn't even matter. Are you sure you will remember every vote in every debate?

No, but that is no reason to do nothing. Worse case is that that vote is removed, and my counter is left (thus making it a vote bomb). The net result is 1 votebomb on the debate, which is equal to what it started with. So the more I remember the better it is, the more I forget, the more neutral it is, but it won't have a negative impact.

The safer thing to do is vote fairly. It is effective and the risk is null.


Maybe you can contact the staff to correct your mistake, but you could have contacted the staff just as easy the first time, dunce there is no report vote option. Voting unfairly for ANY reason is ALWAYS a bad idea. Voting without reading the debate is dangerous every time.

I've already contacted staff. If they remove the vote bombs on my debates, then I'll contact those that did the counter. I only find votebombs when someone makes a post about it, so if the VB is removed, I trust that they will let me know.

And if they dont?



Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.

Never said it did, it is just a sign that it is likely a vote bomb. The person's history on DDO is also a factor.

Did jar2187 have a history of votebombing?

He's VB against me something like 12 times over the weekend, and VB'd for me once before. I saw that he VB'd several other debates as well over the weekend. Unfortunately, there is no time-effective method to find what debates jar2187 has voted on (or what anyone has voted on for that matter). This has also be brough before the staff, and it has been said by the staff that they will remedy it several times, though nothing has been done yet.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 3:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 3:17:35 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 2:05:16 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 1:27:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:56:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:51:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:13:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:03:41 PM, jharry wrote:
OreEle, if you don't read the debate how do you know it was a bias or a dishonest vote?

When a vote actually says "Votebomb" in the RFD. When the same person goes through votes against person x 15 times in 1 day (on 15 different debates) with no RFD on any vote. When people vote, with no RFD, on debates which are very old (like 6 months).

I don't correct simply because I disagree with someone's vote (if they vote in a way that I wouldn't). I correct only obvious cases. Otherwise, I may just vote for myself.

If you dont read the debate can you really say you are any different then the votebomber?

Yes, because countering the votebomb has nothing to do with the actual debate. If it is person A vs person B, and I think A won, and someone votebombed for A (they put "votebomb" in their RFD), I will still counter for B, even though I think A won.

What is the difference between your "correcting" vote and the vote your trying to correct? Neither have anything to do with debate. Both seem to be nothing more then spite. You honestly would vote against the honest winner of the debate just stop someone from saying votebomb? Where is the line? Where do you stop? What if you disagree with someones RFD? Will you votebomb that too? The problem with vigilante mods is there are no clear lines, it is soley up to the vigilante. And that us a slippery slope.

The difference is the reasoning for the actions. It is true that they both have nothing to do with the debate, but they neutralize each other out as far as how they effect the debate.

What, someone voted unfairly in a debate (in your opinion) and you vote unfairly so there unfair vote doesn't count?

No, someone voted unfairly in a debate (in the community's opinion) and I vote to counter it. If you think there is any counter that has been done that wasn't just, feel free to point it out and let the community decide.


If someone was winning, then they should be winning when the VBs have been neutralized. If, after only legitimate votes have been counted, they are not winning, then claiming that they should be winning may only be a personal opinion.

So if no one voted in a certain debate. Con clearly won. Three people voted for con saying "vote bomb" as a RFD. You and three others vite for pro to "counter" the vote bombs. Now the mod removes 14 points from con because it was reported. Now pro is winning and he doesn't deserve it. Slippery slope.

"con clearly won" is a personal opinion. If Con doesn't care enough for their debates to send me a PM to correct my counter, there is nothing more I can do.

Also, in that case, I'd probably contact Con to pm if those VBs were ever removed. And if they still don't contact me, no skin off my back.





Example. Askbob is a known wanna be vigilante. But he goes to far. You might agree with what he does this one time nut what about the next terriorist attack? Or the next one.

And the community can call that out as not okay, or the mods can to provide checks and balances. So far, neither the community, nor (more importantly) the staff have said that countering votebombs are not allowed (hard to say that the VBs are allowed, but not the counters).

But that is the problem with viglante moderators. If the mod makes no call then there is no balance. And then it gets out of control. Division is increased and the site dies.

The balance is the community opinion. Askbob was called out because there were a lot of people saying that what he did was wrong. Not because a single person or two complained, but because a lot of people did. No one really supported him, the site was "divided" with those that were apathetic, and those that were against him.






If you think the votes are obvious then it should be easy to report them. What if you forget to change your vote? What if the voting period ends, that can be very easily done if you go through ten plus debates (without rearing them) in five minutes. Now you have the guy that got voted for a loss and it might not be justified if you didn't read the debate.

There is no "report vote" option. I do report the votes though through PMs with the staff. And if the votes are removed, I'll remove my correction. If the votes are removed from one of my debates, I'll send a PM to the person that did the correction on my debate, thanking them for their assitance and letting them know that they can remove the correction.

And what if you forget? Let's say you voted on 15 debates to counter one votebomber, say it's 30. And let's say you voted against the clear winner just to counter a vote they doesn't even matter. Are you sure you will remember every vote in every debate?

No, but that is no reason to do nothing. Worse case is that that vote is removed, and my counter is left (thus making it a vote bomb). The net result is 1 votebomb on the debate, which is equal to what it started with. So the more I remember the better it is, the more I forget, the more neutral it is, but it won't have a negative impact.

The safer thing to do is vote fairly. It is effective and the risk is null.

The risk of countering VBs is shown to be null. And if people didn't care on their debates to shoot me a simply PM saying "hey, the VB has been removed, can you go ahead and remove your counter," then there is not much else that can be done.



Maybe you can contact the staff to correct your mistake, but you could have contacted the staff just as easy the first time, dunce there is no report vote option. Voting unfairly for ANY reason is ALWAYS a bad idea. Voting without reading the debate is dangerous every time.

I've already contacted staff. If they remove the vote bombs on my debates, then I'll contact those that did the counter. I only find votebombs when someone makes a post about it, so if the VB is removed, I trust that they will let me know.

And if they dont?

If neither side contacts me, I assume that neither side has an issue with that counter bomb.




Just because someone doesn't leave a RFD doesn't automatically mean he is bombing. The only sure fire and completely honest thing to do is read the debate and vote accordingly.

Never said it did, it is just a sign that it is likely a vote bomb. The person's history on DDO is also a factor.

Did jar2187 have a history of votebombing?

He's VB against me something like 12 times over the weekend, and VB'd for me once before. I saw that he VB'd several other debates as well over the weekend. Unfortunately, there is no time-effective method to find what debates jar2187 has voted on (or what anyone has voted on for that matter). This has also be brough before the staff, and it has been said by the staff that they will remedy it several times, though nothing has been done yet.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"