Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

An Explanation, plus bonus discussion!

Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:16:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So yeah, I know a few of you are curious about what happened tonight, so I'll go ahead and explain it. If you want to get in on the discussion, just scroll down to the bottom of this post to where you see bolded text and that's where the discussion question will be raised. But first, an explanation:

Yes, for those of you who can read and realize that I'm the only person who's crazy enough to run arguments like that, I was TheRaceTo9K (http://www.debate.org...).

I created the account after kicking around an idea and coming to the finishing thought of wondering how long it would take me to reach the elo cap (9,000 elo) if I just focused on spamming debates and getting as many wins as I could, as quickly as possible.

From this thought came the birth of TheRaceTo9K (the username should be self-explanatory). It's purpose was pretty friggin' simple: spam debates and win them all and see how long it takes you to reach 9k elo.

The problem here comes with it's existence being, kinda, sorta, in violation of the ToS since it was a multi-account, and my main account wasn't closed (since I still had things I was planning on doing with the account, and not wanting to close my account to see how long I could keep the ruse going of just being a new, very potent member--which apparently wasn't very long but SHHH). So after about the seventh or eighth debate made within a few hours, I obviously got a few looks my way curiously. People started noted the type of arguments I were using (I think bsh1 put it nicely when he said "Con is very much like Zaradi". Guess I'm not as sneaky as I thought...), and people quickly came to the conclusion that I was a multi-account.

I'm sure what I named my email account to sign up didn't exactly help me stay undetected, but that's for Airmax to share if he wants to xP

Anyway, sure enough Airmax contacts me and after a short discussion (more like Airmax looming over me with a banhammer in his hand, just menacingly glaring at me) I agree to close the account.

So in short, yes I was TheRaceTo9K, I was just trying to see how quickly I could hit the elo cap if I tried. To all the users I had debates with, enjoy your free FF wins now that the account is closed and I can't re-open it xP

BUT I PROMISED A DISCUSSION, DID I NOT!? (I hope that's big enough to grab people's attention...)

During my discussion with Airmax, I brought up the argument that there really wasn't any real harm to the multi-account staying open so long as I used it for the purpose I created it for: all I would be doing would be making and completing debates (a positive for the site). I hadn't, and wasn't planning on, verifying my account to obtain voting privileges, so I couldn't use it to vote-bomb. And my sole forum post was me forgetting which account I was logged into (lolIsuck). Out of respect for Airmax's need to keep fair and uniform order, I closed it, but my question remains: so long as a multi-account that was created for a non-malicious purpose remains non-malicious, is there really a harm to having them around?

The same discussion has come up with mafia hydra accounts (hydra accounts meaning two players sharing one account to play a game of mafia together), and I could see this discussion also applying to them. So long as the account is simply used to play mafia and nothing else, is there really a harm to them staying open?

The only argument I can see for possible harms is that we have no guarantee that the multi-account will remain non-malicious: that I could've attempted to verify my account at any time and gotten voting privileges to vote-bomb away at any time, so the constant looming threat of malicious behavior is a reason to keep them closed. I don't really like that argument though.

For one, that's not really a multi-account issue, rather an issue of "Do I trust this person to actually not do something stupid?". In a lot of people's cases here, that wouldn't really be much of an issue (I couldn't really see bsh1 opening up a multi-account to vote bomb people). For newer members who don't quite have the same track record of good behavior that might apply, but it's also kind of apparent on multi-accounts, especially when it comes down to debate arguments (I'm kind of the only person crazy enough to run arguments like this one http://www.debate.org..., so people like bsh1 were quickly able to identify it as me), so any malicious behavior could quickly be prevented (removing the vote/debate that was malicious and closing the multi-account, and potentially temp-banning/perma-banning the main account if the offense was seriously malicious) and solved back for.

For two, this could easily be something that we could work around. Say, if I wanted to make another account to try and reach the elo cap, I could tell Airmax/Bladerunner/whiteflame that I was doing this and the name of the account I was using. He allows me to keep my main-account open, locks the voting privileges on the multi-account, and off I go to race for the elo cap? I could even see this turning into site competitions for people competing to see who can reach the elo cap first. The same logic could, obviously, apply to mafia hydras: the two players in question register the hydra-account with the mod, the hydra-account's voting privileges get locked, and off they skip to the forums.

Comments/Criticisms?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:17:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just realized I'm also dangerously close to 12k posts, so I probably won't reply to a lot of you. I actually kinda wanna do something with my 12k mark, so expect slower replies from me until I hit that mark and make my post.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:25:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It was obviously a multi just because of the fact that no new member would know that the Elo cap is 9,000, lol.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:25:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
*Might be* a hassle for Airmax to handle all of the multis...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:25:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:25:21 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
It was obviously a multi just because of the fact that no new member would know that the Elo cap is 9,000, lol.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:32:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:25:40 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
*Might be* a hassle for Airmax to handle all of the multis...

I don't really think so. For one, I don't see a lot of people actually trying to do this, other than maybe for mafia hydras. For two, the actual work-load required to do this wouldn't be that large. Just when they make the account, take away voting privileges and let 'em run free. People are rather report happy as it is, so if any bad behavior were to come from the multi, Airmax would know pretty quickly. For three, I could easily see this being something Airmax could delegate to bladerunner.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:33:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:25:40 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
*Might be* a hassle for Airmax to handle all of the multis...

But even if it were a hassle, that's not really a specific harm to having a multi-account specifically for the purpose of doing a ton of debates or something.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:25:21 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
It was obviously a multi just because of the fact that no new member would know that the Elo cap is 9,000, lol.

Shhhh, I don't need you and your stupid logic!
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:34:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:32:36 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 1/7/2015 1:25:40 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
*Might be* a hassle for Airmax to handle all of the multis...

I don't really think so. For one, I don't see a lot of people actually trying to do this, other than maybe for mafia hydras. For two, the actual work-load required to do this wouldn't be that large. Just when they make the account, take away voting privileges and let 'em run free. People are rather report happy as it is, so if any bad behavior were to come from the multi, Airmax would know pretty quickly. For three, I could easily see this being something Airmax could delegate to bladerunner.

It's an interesting thought...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:44:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The rule against multi accounting needs to be very consistent. I buy your good intentions for the multi, but the rule is either absolute or non-existent. If its applied only when we feel like it, then there are no grounds to use it when we need or want to, for example, in an ima revolution.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:51:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:44:58 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The rule against multi accounting needs to be very consistent. I buy your good intentions for the multi, but the rule is either absolute or non-existent. If its applied only when we feel like it, then there are no grounds to use it when we need or want to, for example, in an ima revolution.

Consistency doesn't mean there can't be amendments to the rule. The amendments just need to be consistent. Just like how in Texas I'm not allowed to own an automatic AR, UNLESS I file the proper paperwork and go through the necessary background checks and waiting periods to purchase one.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:52:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:51:56 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 1/7/2015 1:44:58 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The rule against multi accounting needs to be very consistent. I buy your good intentions for the multi, but the rule is either absolute or non-existent. If its applied only when we feel like it, then there are no grounds to use it when we need or want to, for example, in an ima revolution.

Consistency doesn't mean there can't be amendments to the rule. The amendments just need to be consistent. Just like how in Texas I'm not allowed to own an automatic AR, UNLESS I file the proper paperwork and go through the necessary background checks and waiting periods to purchase one.

Speaking of which, Thett and I were supposed to go to a range over winter break and have some funzies. I need to get on his a** about that...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:43:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 5:52:46 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Unnecessary bump to prepare myself for 12k post tomorrow.

http://www.debate.org...

This is your 12k post? XD
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:10:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 5:21:00 PM, Beginner wrote:
I completely agree with having multi's be permitted on a reasonable basis. +1
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 5:21:00 PM, Beginner wrote:
I completely agree with having multi's be permitted on a reasonable basis. +1

For this to work though the multis would have to be approved and kept an eye on by the mods and kept on an approved multi list. That in itself seems like undue hassle and work for the already overworked mods.

The rule against multis has to be strictly enforced on a site such as this because multis, unlike on some other sites, on DDO can be quite damaging to the site's integrity as we've seen in the past.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:20:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:55:02 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/8/2015 5:21:00 PM, Beginner wrote:
I completely agree with having multi's be permitted on a reasonable basis. +1

For this to work though the multis would have to be approved and kept an eye on by the mods and kept on an approved multi list. That in itself seems like undue hassle and work for the already overworked mods.
I understand your points and your point of view. However, your complaints apply to all aspects of enforcement on the site. All forms of behavioral infractions require work from the mod. You might as well argue that swearing, cyberbullying, spamming, and other text-related infractions shouldn't be moderated because each of these also provide undue hassle to the work of the mods. In fact, the monitoring of text-related infractions is a monumentally larger burden than keeping tabs on the existence of registered multis.
In fact, many members who want to create harmful multis can and have done so (multis made to spam the forums with ads) regardless of the allowance of multis.
Those who actually want to have legal, harmless multis are the only ones who are hurt by the anti-multi policy.

The rule against multis has to be strictly enforced on a site such as this because multis, unlike on some other sites, on DDO can be quite damaging to the site's integrity as we've seen in the past.

I've never seen multis cause problems in my 2 odd years on this site. Any problems I've heard caused by multis generall encompass non-multi-related infractions.
The illegality of multis only harm people like me and Zaradi, which is really quite sad. *-*
Senpai has noticed you.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:20:20 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:55:02 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/8/2015 5:21:00 PM, Beginner wrote:
I completely agree with having multi's be permitted on a reasonable basis. +1

For this to work though the multis would have to be approved and kept an eye on by the mods and kept on an approved multi list. That in itself seems like undue hassle and work for the already overworked mods.
I understand your points and your point of view. However, your complaints apply to all aspects of enforcement on the site. All forms of behavioral infractions require work from the mod. You might as well argue that swearing, cyberbullying, spamming, and other text-related infractions shouldn't be moderated because each of these also provide undue hassle to the work of the mods. In fact, the monitoring of text-related infractions is a monumentally larger burden than keeping tabs on the existence of registered multis.
In fact, many members who want to create harmful multis can and have done so (multis made to spam the forums with ads) regardless of the allowance of multis.
Those who actually want to have legal, harmless multis are the only ones who are hurt by the anti-multi policy.

The rule against multis has to be strictly enforced on a site such as this because multis, unlike on some other sites, on DDO can be quite damaging to the site's integrity as we've seen in the past.

I've never seen multis cause problems in my 2 odd years on this site. Any problems I've heard caused by multis generall encompass non-multi-related infractions.
The illegality of multis only harm people like me and Zaradi, which is really quite sad. *-*

There were damaging multi cases involving JimTimmy as well as other members in which they were using multies to defend their main accounts and vote for debates that their main accounts were involved in. That is very damaging to the site.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:35:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:22:57 PM, Clovis wrote:
There were damaging multi cases involving JimTimmy as well as other members in which they were using multies to defend their main accounts and vote for debates that their main accounts were involved in. That is very damaging to the site.

Just as users can report behavioral infractions, people can report known multi's supporting itself.
We don't have a "Report Vote" function for nothing. Users like JimTimmy operate under the fact that they begin with unknown multis. Infractions are infractions, whether or not committed under a multi. Unknown multis will always operate as unknown multis whether or not the system allows it. Known multis, on the other hand, cannot cause the problems that come from unknown multis. There will always be unknown multis. We can't stop that, but using the harms of unknown multis to damage those who wish to have known multis is unfair.
Senpai has noticed you.
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:35:55 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:22:57 PM, Clovis wrote:
There were damaging multi cases involving JimTimmy as well as other members in which they were using multies to defend their main accounts and vote for debates that their main accounts were involved in. That is very damaging to the site.

Just as users can report behavioral infractions, people can report known multi's supporting itself.
We don't have a "Report Vote" function for nothing. Users like JimTimmy operate under the fact that they begin with unknown multis. Infractions are infractions, whether or not committed under a multi. Unknown multis will always operate as unknown multis whether or not the system allows it. Known multis, on the other hand, cannot cause the problems that come from unknown multis. There will always be unknown multis. We can't stop that, but using the harms of unknown multis to damage those who wish to have known multis is unfair.

Save for a very specific purpose such as as the Mafia example I don't understand why multis are even necessary. Zaradi could declare that he's undertaking a challenge, deactivate his main account, try and get to 9k, when hes done, reactivate his main acount and deactivate the multi, then no rules are broken.

There are, in my view, very few legitimate purposes to have a multi.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:55:02 PM, Clovis wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:35:55 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:22:57 PM, Clovis wrote:
There were damaging multi cases involving JimTimmy as well as other members in which they were using multies to defend their main accounts and vote for debates that their main accounts were involved in. That is very damaging to the site.

Just as users can report behavioral infractions, people can report known multi's supporting itself.
We don't have a "Report Vote" function for nothing. Users like JimTimmy operate under the fact that they begin with unknown multis. Infractions are infractions, whether or not committed under a multi. Unknown multis will always operate as unknown multis whether or not the system allows it. Known multis, on the other hand, cannot cause the problems that come from unknown multis. There will always be unknown multis. We can't stop that, but using the harms of unknown multis to damage those who wish to have known multis is unfair.

Save for a very specific purpose such as as the Mafia example I don't understand why multis are even necessary. Zaradi could declare that he's undertaking a challenge, deactivate his main account, try and get to 9k, when hes done, reactivate his main acount and deactivate the multi, then no rules are broken.

There are, in my view, very few legitimate purposes to have a multi.

That's up to those who actually want to multi, and not you. Why I want to multi is different from why Zaradi wants to multi, and why either of us wants to multi is not relevant to this discussion.

The fact is, there is no legitimate non-double-standard or hypocritical reason not to have multi.
We could even set the qualification for multi-application to be based on ELO or number of debates completed or something similar to what we have for voting or running (except much much higher like, say 30 completed debates or 1000 forum posts or something). I don't know. All I know is that there is no reason my harmless little account, Newb, shouldn't be revived. D:<
Senpai has noticed you.