Update Regarding Vote Monitoring

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/24/2007 07:59:52 PM · #301

I'm not suggesting its democratic. I'm suggesting its a community.

I'm not suggesting that we put the question of suspensions to a popular vote. I'm suggesting that the community would show more support for DPC's actions if they were not fearful that their own rights could be unfairly taken away.

That the punishments don't take effect until midnight doesn't address the perception of unfairness, which I was trying to get at. I'm not saying it is unfair, just that people may perceive it that way because the punishment has been decided before they have had an opportunity to be heard.

edit to respond to both Artyste and ClubJuggle

Message edited by author 2007-04-24 20:03:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/24/2007 08:13:10 PM · #302

Originally posted by stdavidson:

To keep the definitions of cheating secret and penalize voters for violations in the manner done yesterday is an error and will generate more voter paranoia than already exists and will decrease site morale.

Publishing specific evaluation criteria or methods is tantamount to giving any potential cheaters an instruction manual in how to circumvent them.

It's already clear that a wide variety of voting styles and methods are not affected by this analysis -- if you didn't already get a notice then you shouldn't have to change anything.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

04/24/2007 08:21:14 PM · #303

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:

People can perceive unfairness all they want. The simple fact is that when people sign up to, and start taking part in, the challenges on this website (whether entering *or* voting), and either choose not to read the rules, or choose to read them sporadically, they are taking their chances right then and there. They are effectively giving up any right to complain about any disciplinary action against them. If they've been falsely tagged (as happened), they *can* take it up with SC. It's been proven that SC can figure out that it was accidental.

I don't see what part of "You didn't read the rules and were caught doing something wrong, so we must level a warning/suspension/whatever as outlined in said rules" people are having such a problem with.

It's clear to me by reading both of the threads on this subject that people aren't *READING* anything clearly enough in the first place. Whether it was the rules in the beginning, the announcement that was made, or the follow ups that continually reiterate things. If fear and paranoia and misinformation and mixed up perceptions are happening, it's not due to SC or any action on their part.. it's due to laziness, lack of comprehension, and/or general discord on the part of the people not understanding it. That is not something the SC.. poor underappreciated bastards that they are.. have much control over.

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/24/2007 08:21:49 PM · #304

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:

That the punishments don't take effect until midnight doesn't address the perception of unfairness, which I was trying to get at. I'm not saying it is unfair, just that people may perceive it that way because the punishment has been decided before they have had an opportunity to be heard.

Would you address the perception of unfairness from the point of view of the majority of the site's users, who have voted fairly all along? Also, could you provide what you believe is justification for voting one or more of your friends all 10's, in some cases upwards of 20 times in a row?

To not address the (very small) number of people manipulating the system destroys the very credibility of that system.

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/24/2007 08:26:19 PM · #305

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:

Wonder if you could explain how things got so turned around. How did your 'perception of unfairness' label end up on SC's forehead instead of where it rightly belongs...
I for one have absolutely no doubt that the SC keeps the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept clearly in mind and firmly believe that actions were not taken lightly. Does anyone believe that the mandate handed out to SC is to piss as many people off as possible? Seems a little counter productive woldn't you think?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/24/2007 08:30:46 PM · #306

Originally posted by Qart:

Does anyone believe that the mandate handed out to SC is to piss as many people off as possible?

Your suggestion presents the possibility of a surfeit of entertaining discourse ... I'll have to keep it in mind for next April ... ; )

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/24/2007 08:34:23 PM · #307

Originally posted by L2:

Would you address the perception of unfairness from the point of view of the majority of the site's users, who have voted fairly all along?

This is exactly my point. I think the majority of the site users are voting fairly, and will continue to do so. I think what we are seeing in the threads is some fear/concern by people who are not abusing the system that their votes will be misinterpreted. I think if most of those users knew that they would have an opportunity to explain their votes before being suspended of "convicted" of improper voting, we

Originally posted by L2:

would see a lot less paranoia in the posts.

[quote=L2]Also, could you provide what you believe is justification for voting one or more of your friends all 10's, in some cases upwards of 20 times in a row?

I don't think there is any justification for that conduct. My post was about protecting the inncocent, and allaying fears that their votes will be misinterpreted. (This is the first I've read that someone voted a 10 20 times in a row. They would be hard pressed to explain such conduct, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given the opportunity to do so. What if all 20 images were blue ribbon winners? And what if the people they voted highly weren't their friends at all, but someone just assumed they were from the voting pattern?)

Originally posted by L2:

To not address the (very small) number of people manipulating the system destroys the very credibility of that system.

I agree 110%

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/24/2007 08:36:59 PM · #308

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:

Originally posted by L2:
Would you address the perception of unfairness from the point of view of the majority of the site's users, who have voted fairly all along?

This is exactly my point. I think the majority of the site users are voting fairly, and will continue to do so. I think what we are seeing in the threads is some fear/concern by people who are not abusing the system that their votes will be misinterpreted.

Doesn't the fact that these people didn't get a notice somewhat suggest that their voting pattern is OK?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/24/2007 08:38:26 PM · #309

Originally posted by Qart:

Actually if you read my prior post you would see I expressly said I was NOT attacking SC or placing any blame on them, and recognized they were doing everything they could to be fair, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. They do a great job for little thanks, and I'm not about to criticize their efforts.

I'm only suggesting a small change in the process, to allay the fears expressed in the threads today. Its not "my perception of unfairness" ... its out there. We can choose to ignore it, ridicule the people who express it, or do something about it. I, for one, prefer the latter.

Nikon D200

04/24/2007 08:48:37 PM · #310

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:

...My post was about protecting the inncocent, and allaying fears that their votes will be misinterpreted. (This is the first I've read that someone voted a 10 20 times in a row. They would be hard pressed to explain such conduct, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given the opportunity to do so. What if all 20 images were blue ribbon winners? And what if the people they voted highly weren't their friends at all, but someone just assumed they were from the voting pattern?)

As ClubJuggle has stated several times, we make every effort to distinguish between normal votes (repeatedly voting highly on images that also place highly) and abnormal votes/statistical improbabilities. The manual review and investigation of a flagged account is vigourous and intensive, and if in fact the votes appear to have reasonable justification then the flag is removed and no action is taken.

This point about statistical improbabilities is what *I* was trying to make in my post. See?

With regard to oppportunity to appeal or explain, I haven't seen any evidence that anyone was denied an appeal. In fact, I do know of 2 cases where the voters asked for a re-review, presented additional credible evidence, and were granted a pass from any consequence. There are others that there is just no way in heck it wasn't manipulation, and no reasonable person could say otherwise.

I can see that you are very concerned about the timing between notification and actual suspension. Here, it was a little better than 48 hours. Is that not enough time?

liltritter

Nikon D70s

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED

04/24/2007 09:04:18 PM · #311

Not to be rude, but actually to inflict some humor, but who has that dead horse animated graphic? 2 reasons one I think maybe at this point it fits in here, and the second reason is I want to right click save as........LOVE that one.