Cell Phone Verification

Recently, and actually over a period of time, I have been receiving an increase of people going through me for voting verification. It seems to be an easy way of getting voting priviledges, and a viable option. However, this increase has had a negative effect on Juggle's responsiveness to my requests. Originally it was a viable avenue for people that were really unable to find a cell phone, particularly those who do not live in the US, but now that has changed and I've been receiving requests about 3 per day. Although I don't have a major problem with this, Juggle seems to be less and less cooperative as the requests increase more and more.

This morning I sent the following email to Julia:

"Hello Julia,

Recently the number of requests for voting ability has been increasing markedly. I understand your time and resources are limited, as are mine. I also believe that it's become a viable alternative in the minds of many members of the site to a cell phone verification.

Since your responsiveness has been slower than what it once was I must conclude that you are restrained by your time and resources to process the requests that I have send, and I am very sensitive to this, and understand that we can only do what we can only do.

My question to you is, how would you like me to respond to the requests that I get, or is there an alternative to this current method of processing the exceptions? I am completely open to exploring all other avenues of reconciling member requests.

Thank you.

Dennis"

For now those who are waiting for verification should try and explore options in finding someone with a cell phone who can verify their ID.

I will keep everyone appraised of the situation.

-president innomen

Thanks. I argue for a voting reform.

1) All members must complete at least 5 debates before they are allowed to vote.
2) An administrator must approve of their request to vote (this will cut down on votebombs)
3) Any member caught vote bombing will lose their voting priviliges.

Yeah, making it so you cant essentially,"bot" voting rights is a much better way of stopping VBing than the cell phone thing.

If Julia responds, I will propose something like that. Although I would imagine making that sort of a change would require a herculean effort by Juggle, and they will not help us out.

Yes, from what it seems they like making excuses for why they can't help us.....

At 2/21/2012 6:29:42 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Thanks. I argue for a voting reform.

1) All members must complete at least 5 debates before they are allowed to vote.
2) An administrator must approve of their request to vote if section 1 is not fulfilled(this will cut down on votebombs)
3) Any member fairly judged as having commited vote bombing by a committee / their peers will lose their voting priviliges.

My contributional change. Also, I'd say removal of one round debates if the change from 3 to 5 debates is wanted. However, this is something that will irritate a fair few people.

"Hi Dennis,

Thank you for reaching out. While I have not necessarily responded to each of your voting request emails, they have been addressed. As I said in a previous correspondence, we will address the requests for voting privileges once a week, usually on Thursdays.

With the exception of the requests you have sent through since last Thursday - all of the ones prior should now be accounts with voting privileges.

I agree that the cell phone verification is less than ideal when it comes to confirming accounts. What would help us considerably is if you were to consolidate a list of requests and send them through each week in one email. It will make the requests easier to track on our end rather than tracking down various emails throughout the week that contain requests.

We can process the requests, usually without issue. All I ask is that rather than sending the request as soon as you get it, you consolidate requests for a week and send them all through.

Thanks,
Julia"

"Thank you for your response Julia. I do understand that it is best if we consolidate the requests to once a week, and I will do what I can to let the site know that this is the preferred method. I would also ask you to take into consideration my time as well, and I will do my best to accommodate your schedule, but there are times when my schedule is less than flexible, and sales calls and appointments make my availability to serve the site difficult.

Again, I truly appreciate your help with these requests, and your attention to the site.

Dennis Sullivan"

So any voting verification should be done on Thursdays. I'll do my best to accommodate their schedule.

innomen

At 2/21/2012 1:27:11 PM, innomen wrote:
"Thank you for your response Julia. I do understand that it is best if we consolidate the requests to once a week, and I will do what I can to let the site know that this is the preferred method. I would also ask you to take into consideration my time as well, and I will do my best to accommodate your schedule, but there are times when my schedule is less than flexible, and sales calls and appointments make my availability to serve the site difficult.

Again, I truly appreciate your help with these requests, and your attention to the site.


Dennis Sullivan"

Sullivan, is it? Now I have all the info I need...

lol. Great.

At 2/21/2012 1:29:37 PM, Maikuru wrote:

At 2/21/2012 1:27:11 PM, innomen wrote:
"Thank you for your response Julia. I do understand that it is best if we consolidate the requests to once a week, and I will do what I can to let the site know that this is the preferred method. I would also ask you to take into consideration my time as well, and I will do my best to accommodate your schedule, but there are times when my schedule is less than flexible, and sales calls and appointments make my availability to serve the site difficult.

Again, I truly appreciate your help with these requests, and your attention to the site.


Dennis Sullivan"

Sullivan, is it? Now I have all the info I need...

Woburn Mass. (if that helps.)

At 2/21/2012 6:29:42 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Thanks. I argue for a voting reform.

1) All members must complete at least 5 debates before they are allowed to vote.
2) An administrator must approve of their request to vote (this will cut down on votebombs)
3) Any member caught vote bombing will lose their voting priviliges.

1) Not a bad idea.
2) Wouldn't this make the bureaucracy of DDO block larger voting participation? Or would we have to do this only once?
3) Sure, but VB would need to be defined.