Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Vote-bombers

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:10:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In order to head off the soon-to-be-chaotic claims of vote-bombing by individuals on the website, I think this thread is needed. Its good to centralize these claims.

Anyways, apparently mongeese has claimed that several prominent members have vote-bombed against him, including Lwerd and Vi, and somehow JBlake and some others. I don't put too much stock into all claims of vote-bombing by the mongs, but others have also talked about the situation regarding Lwerd and Vi.

Apparently, and I confirmed this myself, they vote in unison, almost unilaterally with 7-pointers, giving usually a 14-point advantage to whichever is debating, or sometimes a 21-point, since Lwerd had that other account during the time she was banned.

What does everyone think of this? I hate to say it, but the evidence is seems petty damning to me. Are there any ways to deal with it?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:13:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like I've said before, I don't think we'll have to deal with or fix anything. If voters are exposed in the vote tab, I'm sure it won't be a problem anymore.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 3:12:24 PM, Puck wrote:
They should not be allowed to agree and vote accordingly? I see ...

There is no formal rule against it, Puck, just as there is no formal rule against vote-bombing. However, it will annoy people and it is seen as giving an unfair advantage to whoever is debating. People will want to counter that advantage.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Plus I don't think L and Vi should be singled out. There have been many others that I've witnessed so far.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:16:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 3:15:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Plus I don't think L and Vi should be singled out. There have been many others that I've witnessed so far.

Oh, of course not. By all means, post who you have suspicions about - I simply posited Lwerd and Vi because its the big story right now.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:17:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 3:13:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/19/2010 3:12:24 PM, Puck wrote:
They should not be allowed to agree and vote accordingly? I see ...

There is no formal rule against it, Puck, just as there is no formal rule against vote-bombing. However, it will annoy people and it is seen as giving an unfair advantage to whoever is debating. People will want to counter that advantage.

Not the point, just that you seem to imply that simply because they share an opinion that it may harbour some extra intent. Who cares if people are annoyed. People vote for how they feel about a topic all the time.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:21:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 3:18:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
In this attempt to centralize discussion, we have two threads over vote-bombing where we had only one before.

Irony is fun!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.