| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2009 09:57:00 AM · #176 |
I agree, I have switched ISP's at least 7 times in the past 10 years. Twice since I arrived here in NZ just a few months ago. I have a Yahoo account and a hotmail account also have one that my wife and I share at hotmail. I haven't bothered with the ISP email account here because if I change providers I would have to contact too many people to notify them of the change. Hassle Hassle Hassle. No thanks!
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 10:16:49 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I agree, I have switched ISP's at least 7 times in the past 10 years. Twice since I arrived here in NZ just a few months ago. I have a Yahoo account and a hotmail account also have one that my wife and I share at hotmail. I haven't bothered with the ISP email account here because if I change providers I would have to contact too many people to notify them of the change. Hassle Hassle Hassle. No thanks! |
That's pretty much where I'm coming from, too.
When I was having trouble with my last ISP, Earthlink, in disgust I finally gave up and got G-Mail.
I now have Comcast cable Internet (YAY!!!), but never even bothered to set up my free e-mail account(s?) with them.
Surely there must be some way to positively ID someone should the need arise.
I figure if SC is okay with how they accomplish their identification of the occasional dirtbag multiple user, I'm not worried about it.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 10:42:12 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I agree, I have switched ISP's at least 7 times in the past 10 years. Twice since I arrived here in NZ just a few months ago. I have a Yahoo account and a hotmail account also have one that my wife and I share at hotmail. I haven't bothered with the ISP email account here because if I change providers I would have to contact too many people to notify them of the change. Hassle Hassle Hassle. No thanks! |
That's pretty much where I'm coming from, too.
When I was having trouble with my last ISP, Earthlink, in disgust I finally gave up and got G-Mail.
I now have Comcast cable Internet (YAY!!!), but never even bothered to set up my free e-mail account(s?) with them.
Surely there must be some way to positively ID someone should the need arise.
I figure if SC is okay with how they accomplish their identification of the occasional dirtbag multiple user, I'm not worried about it. |
Just to clarify, I was NOT suggesting anyone jettison their favorite email service. I was suggesting identity verification can be accomplished by requiring the confidential submission of a "non-free" email address at the time of registration or subscription to verify identity. Once that is accomplished, members/users can continue using their favorite email service for all communications. It's just one way to slow down the creation of ghost accounts.
The SC does a good job. Certainly there are many ways to verify identity and reduce the workload involved in detecting the "skidrugs" amongst us. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 11:03:09 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It has come to light that users kenskid and rugman1969 were in fact duplicate accounts engaged in buddy voting and tag team forum posts. Accordingly, both accounts have been terminated and the user banned from DPC. We want to take this opportunity to remind the community that this WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Voting and member accounts are actively monitored, and it will be discovered. |
Banning people for duplicate accounts is just wrong.
Phototaker
Ilovephoto
shotphotos
photocontestruler
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 11:20:31 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
... I was suggesting identity verification can be accomplished by requiring the confidential submission of a "non-free" email address at the time of registration or subscription to verify identity..... |
Just an FYI, I have an infinite number of "non-free" email addresses at multiple domains, and can have as many domains as I desire for the cost of about one beer per year. So maybe the "non-free" email address idea can be put to rest?
A more secure idea would be to allow each Member to have ten accounts, but for each account created, the Member must chop off a finger, or thumb, and mail it to SC.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 11:28:53 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
...A more secure idea would be to allow each Member to have ten accounts, but for each account created, the Member must chop off a finger, or thumb, and mail it to SC. |
I live in a community which employs many migrant workers in the hospitality industry. Each of those workers provides a fingerprint for identity verification purposes. Upon review of the fingerprints on file, a local hotel manager noticed the identical nature of many prints on file. It then occurred to this manager that it may be a problem, in the event of a work related accident causing loss of a digit, as to whom to return the severed finger. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 12:05:14 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I agree, I have switched ISP's at least 7 times in the past 10 years. Twice since I arrived here in NZ just a few months ago. I have a Yahoo account and a hotmail account also have one that my wife and I share at hotmail. I haven't bothered with the ISP email account here because if I change providers I would have to contact too many people to notify them of the change. Hassle Hassle Hassle. No thanks! |
wow. things are so different in the U.S.A.! Here in Canada we have way fewer ISPs available. In my area (town of 75,000 people and living about 60 miles from Toronto which is the 5th largest city in North America) I have the choice of 3 ISPs if I want high speed internet. Same thing with cell phone service, although I think for that we are now up to about 5. From what I understand I think we likely get better service overall, but at a much higher price because there is so little competition. (and the higher price allows them to provide better service and still make some $) Ok, sorry once again for the thread drift.
As for preventing duplicate accounts here at DPC, I think things are fine. There is such a small percentage of this happening that it's effect is really almost negligable in the grand scheme of things. The SC does a great job of finding the abuse, and making sure to publicize it when they ban someone helps to deter others from trying it. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 12:11:50 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I agree, I have switched ISP's at least 7 times in the past 10 years. Twice since I arrived here in NZ just a few months ago. I have a Yahoo account and a hotmail account also have one that my wife and I share at hotmail. I haven't bothered with the ISP email account here because if I change providers I would have to contact too many people to notify them of the change. Hassle Hassle Hassle. No thanks! |
That's pretty much where I'm coming from, too.
When I was having trouble with my last ISP, Earthlink, in disgust I finally gave up and got G-Mail.
I now have Comcast cable Internet (YAY!!!), but never even bothered to set up my free e-mail account(s?) with them.
Surely there must be some way to positively ID someone should the need arise.
I figure if SC is okay with how they accomplish their identification of the occasional dirtbag multiple user, I'm not worried about it. |
Just to clarify, I was NOT suggesting anyone jettison their favorite email service. I was suggesting identity verification can be accomplished by requiring the confidential submission of a "non-free" email address at the time of registration or subscription to verify identity. Once that is accomplished, members/users can continue using their favorite email service for all communications. It's just one way to slow down the creation of ghost accounts.
The SC does a good job. Certainly there are many ways to verify identity and reduce the workload involved in detecting the "skidrugs" amongst us. |
We understand that we wouldn't have to switch emails to register - we'd only have to use the "non-free" email that one time. But this still seems like an inconvenience for all the honest people, just for the sake of maybe slowing down the dishonest. And frankly, I don't see why we should have to be inconvenienced for the sake of "security."
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 12:16:32 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
...We understand that we wouldn't have to switch emails to register - we'd only have to use the "non-free" email that one time. But this still seems like an inconvenience for all the honest people, just for the sake of maybe slowing down the dishonest. And frankly, I don't see why we should have to be inconvenienced for the sake of "security." |
I certainly agree with this. It is probably the reason there will be no move towards tighter identity verification. That's okay! |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 12:20:42 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
...A more secure idea would be to allow each Member to have ten accounts, but for each account created, the Member must chop off a finger, or thumb, and mail it to SC. |
I live in a community which employs many migrant workers in the hospitality industry. Each of those workers provides a fingerprint for identity verification purposes. Upon review of the fingerprints on file, a local hotel manager noticed the identical nature of many prints on file. It then occurred to this manager that it may be a problem, in the event of a work related accident causing loss of a digit, as to whom to return the severed finger. |
Yikes!
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 12:51:16 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
...A more secure idea would be to allow each Member to have ten accounts, but for each account created, the Member must chop off a finger, or thumb, and mail it to SC. |
I live in a community which employs many migrant workers in the hospitality industry. Each of those workers provides a fingerprint for identity verification purposes. Upon review of the fingerprints on file, a local hotel manager noticed the identical nature of many prints on file. It then occurred to this manager that it may be a problem, in the event of a work related accident causing loss of a digit, as to whom to return the severed finger. |
Just look for the person missing a finger? *grin* If they're lucky it will be the middle one. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 01:32:10 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
...A more secure idea would be to allow each Member to have ten accounts, but for each account created, the Member must chop off a finger, or thumb, and mail it to SC. |
Originally posted by hahn23:
I live in a community which employs many migrant workers in the hospitality industry. Each of those workers provides a fingerprint for identity verification purposes. Upon review of the fingerprints on file, a local hotel manager noticed the identical nature of many prints on file. It then occurred to this manager that it may be a problem, in the event of a work related accident causing loss of a digit, as to whom to return the severed finger. |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Just look for the person missing a finger? *grin* If they're lucky it will be the middle one. |
Wouldn't work with Slippy......his just grow back like a lizard's tail......8>)
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 01:36:02 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Just to clarify, I was NOT suggesting anyone jettison their favorite email service. I was suggesting identity verification can be accomplished by requiring the confidential submission of a "non-free" email address at the time of registration or subscription to verify identity. Once that is accomplished, members/users can continue using their favorite email service for all communications. It's just one way to slow down the creation of ghost accounts.
The SC does a good job. Certainly there are many ways to verify identity and reduce the workload involved in detecting the "skidrugs" amongst us. |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
We understand that we wouldn't have to switch emails to register - we'd only have to use the "non-free" email that one time. But this still seems like an inconvenience for all the honest people, just for the sake of maybe slowing down the dishonest. And frankly, I don't see why we should have to be inconvenienced for the sake of "security." |
I do kind of agree that there could/should be some kind of verification process, but the problem is that there are 'Net geeks out there who, like Slippy suhggested, have access to multiple e-mails at different domains that would prevent a standard such as just making ID an ISP based thing.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 03:41:18 PM · #189 |
| Well the best solution would be for Langdon to hire me to travel to each applicants location to verify her/his identity. It would be a tough job traveling all over the world, but one I'm willing to do for the right salary and per diem. We'd have to verify the current members first. That would take quite some time but I should be finished in a few years. Man! Looking forward to meeting Slippy, posthumous, GeneralIE, Irene, Larus, and many others. Wouldn't it be funny if they were all Rose!!!! |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 03:48:18 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
The concept of providing a "non-free" email address is not new, nor unprecedented. My bank, my online broker, one of my photo galleries and a few online forums have required an email address from a "non-free" email provider. They will not accept the free email addresses from gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc. The reason is for identity verification purposes. |
On my registered domain, 100 email addresses are provided at the base domain cost. For 10 bux more I can have my identity obscured so that only governmental types may ascertain my identity. Most of the entities you mentioned would accept this email, even though it does nothing to reveal my identity or intent.
I'm perfectly happy to allow Langdon and SC to use whatever method to apprehend smacktards that they are already using. When they start giving 100 bux, 500 bux, and 1000 bux for the ribbons, we might need to increase security. (oh and I might re-up my membership :P ) |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 04:10:19 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I do kind of agree that there could/should be some kind of verification process, but the problem is that there are 'Net geeks out there who, like Slippy suhggested, have access to multiple e-mails at different domains that would prevent a standard such as just making ID an ISP based thing. |
Without trying to put ideas into peoples head - the whole "checking via IP" address thing is nonsense anyway - I have 3 browsers installed on my system, IE, Firefox and Chrome, and I could set each one up to point to different free proxy servers, that way anyone analysing webstats would find it pretty hard to tell traffic was coming from the same user as my IP address would be different, as would the browser version etc.
I think the SC really have their work cut out for them when it comes to discovering those with multiple accounts, I daresay it is prevalent on this website, maybe even some of the more well known/popular users have at some point had/have multiple accounts. Its just one of those annoying things that we will have to live with and to be honest, I dont think it affects voting and final scores that much, if at all. But agree it should be stamped out where found.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 04:43:57 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I do kind of agree that there could/should be some kind of verification process, but the problem is that there are 'Net geeks out there who, like Slippy suhggested, have access to multiple e-mails at different domains that would prevent a standard such as just making ID an ISP based thing. |
Without trying to put ideas into peoples head - the whole "checking via IP" address thing is nonsense anyway - I have 3 browsers installed on my system, IE, Firefox and Chrome, and I could set each one up to point to different free proxy servers, that way anyone analysing webstats would find it pretty hard to tell traffic was coming from the same user as my IP address would be different, as would the browser version etc.
I think the SC really have their work cut out for them when it comes to discovering those with multiple accounts, I daresay it is prevalent on this website, maybe even some of the more well known/popular users have at some point had/have multiple accounts. Its just one of those annoying things that we will have to live with and to be honest, I dont think it affects voting and final scores that much, if at all. But agree it should be stamped out where found. |
It would be nice if there was some way to positively identify multiple/ghost accounts, however, as you said, trying to do it by IP address is nonsense.
What I find strange about this whole incident is that kenskid creates a thread that enrages a few... ummm... people, and then all of a sudden he gets kicked off for having a ghost account. He's been here for quite a while. If he actually had one or more ghost accounts, why wait until now to remove him?
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 05:16:15 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Mick:
What I find strange about this whole incident is that kenskid creates a thread that enrages a few... ummm... people, and then all of a sudden he gets kicked off for having a ghost account. He's been here for quite a while. If he actually had one or more ghost accounts, why wait until now to remove him? |
Because it took so long for the third, slavering at the jaws persona to burst forth into the light of day????
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 05:39:42 PM · #194 |
Kenskid is/was an idiot, something that works against you when you're trying to be smart.
As a ten-year-old Morrocan boy once told me: "Il ne faut pas être malin. Il y a toujours quelq'un qui est plus malin que toi."
It costs to learn. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 08:13:44 PM · #195 |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 08:31:43 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
 |
It's never a really good debate until Art illustrates it :-)
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 09:03:41 PM · #197 |
Ah, just thought of another way SC could potentially tell a dupe account.
They could make a request - for whatever reason - for the RAW or UNedited file and see if the serial numbers of the camera are the same in the EXIF information - obviously I am assuming Kenskid/Rugman were using the same model of camera (or whoever else is being looked at as having a dupe account) - yeah, thats one way - they may not even need to request it if the EXIF info is left in any JPGs submitted for challenges.
Thats actually a better way than the IP method - as the person in question would
1. Have to own 2 cameras
2. Be shooting or submitting as Persona 1 when using camera A and Persona 2 when using Camera B
Yeah, I think that's definitely a good way of catching someone out.
Does anyone know what cameras Kenskid and Rugman were using - surely if one was shooting Canon and the other was shooting Nikon then it might be an argument that they were in fact two seperate people.
Another way would be if Kenskid/Rugman logged on from home and had the same IP address there - but again this could be thwarted by using two seperate browsers/proxies. Maybe he slipped up here.
Looking at it a bit more indepth - it seems that there was quite a lot of differences between their processing style.
ALSO....
I have just been going through their comments left and looking at voting trends using some stuff I dragged out of the google cache.. I really think these were two separate people - I agree there is a strong trend of buddy-buddy tag teaming going on, and it also looks like SEG is known to them, they seemed to know his entries if you read the comments.
I can post links etc if anyone is interested - but it can all be checked out by searching for their names on google and clicking on the `cached` button. Which leads me onto the fact that each of the `usernames` have a distinctive presence out there on the net, with seperate photostreams on flickr and different entries on different forums - Kenskid certainly seems to be the more active of the two, and maybe he even went to all the bother of setting up a separate personality to cover his tracks, but there does seem to be an awful lot of stuff `out there`.. check it out for yourselves.
All I can assume is that the SC have pretty good evidence that Kenskid/Rugman were the same person. All I can guess is he slipped up one way and that`s how they nailed him.
It DOES seem Kenskid had a MAJOR problem with IreneM and her entries and there certainly seemed to be a lot of jealously at her success.
Finally - any methods of cheat detection employed by the SC can be defeated, even the whole RAW file/Date changing checks can be overcome with a little bit of lateral thinking - I wouldn`t like to try it, but I have a method that could easily thwart any of their checks - they are not all powerful. And no, I wouldn't ever (and haven`t) use it myself and dont ask me how as I aint telling. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 09:13:30 PM · #198 |
| Oh, and check out Kenskid (Kenny Skidmore) on Facebook, especially his friends, again, two seperate people (with their own groups of friends) or someone totally delusional. |
|
|
|
09/20/2009 09:23:11 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Oh, and check out Kenskid (Kenny Skidmore) on Facebook, especially his friends, again, two seperate people (with their own groups of friends) or someone totally delusional. |
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic,
And so am I!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
|
|
|
|
09/20/2009 09:45:31 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Does anyone know what cameras Kenskid and Rugman were using - surely if one was shooting Canon and the other was shooting Nikon then it might be an argument that they were in fact two seperate people.
|
One of them was using Nikon D70.. Can't remember which one was using it though... |
|
