| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2009 09:46:08 PM · #126 |
| I've just been hired by president Obama, I am the new DPC Zar. My job description is to start trouble, cheat like hell and blame someone else, create multiple usernames and ghost accounts and troll vote the new challenges every week. The bad news is I'm new here (just signed up today) and I'm getting paid $180k a year for this stressful job. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 09:59:39 PM · #127 |
Oh....I feel a laugh coming on........wait for it.......wait for it........
;)
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I just wanted to say good work, but your job isn't done. I'm pretty sure THIS person requires a good deal of watching as well. They are very suspicious!! |
|
|
|
|
09/18/2009 10:23:40 PM · #128 |
How did my name get dragged into this thread?
I haven't been suspicious in years.
David |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 10:35:47 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by SEG:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by SEG:
OK I need to stop typing and enjoy bowling. Defending myself on a forum is hard work. |
Take a photograph of your nerdy bowling shoes with your iPhone and post it here! LOL! |
this took about 30 minutes to post so please don't ask for photo validation again:)
Link to photo |
SEG, I nominate you for the "most able to laugh at himself" award. I laugh at myself all the time, and I appreciate a fellow traveler. :) |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 11:27:38 PM · #130 |
| I created my other account so I could win scads of ribbons, whilst my regular self maintains a modest appearance. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 11:32:12 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I've just been hired by president Obama, I am the new DPC Zar. My job description is to start trouble, cheat like hell and blame someone else, create multiple usernames and ghost accounts and troll vote the new challenges every week. The bad news is I'm new here (just signed up today) and I'm getting paid $180k a year for this stressful job. |
HEHEHE. It does not need to be through Obama though...pretty much any politician matches that description. (no need to be partisan) |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 11:33:53 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I created my other account so I could win scads of ribbons, whilst my regular self maintains a modest appearance. |
Wow, you look hot as a red head! |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 01:24:52 AM · #133 |
I am curious. How does DPC handle the case of several family members sharing a PC or a home internet connection and all having an interest in dpc?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2009 07:18:23 AM · #134 |
| Aint that something. Can't be that smart...if you are going to have 2 accounts, the last thing I would do is contribute to the forums with both of them, especailly inflammatory stuff that people are going to take notice of you with. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 09:19:42 AM · #135 |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 09:41:03 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by togtog:
I am curious. How does DPC handle the case of several family members sharing a PC or a home internet connection and all having an interest in dpc? |
good question....as my daughter and I share my computer here at home and I use hers sometimes from her house, plus she uses one from work from time to time.... |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:17:20 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by togtog:
I am curious. How does DPC handle the case of several family members sharing a PC or a home internet connection and all having an interest in dpc? |
We have 3 accounts (actually 4) on the same computer.  jcar is my 10 year old son, though I think DPC has run its course and legos are more fun again. I'm not sure of my husband's username. He hasn't entered anything, but he used to vote in the challenges when I first started. My daughter created an account because she wanted to give special awards, like  posthumous, but she never did anything, and then myself. Though my husband sometimes goes on through his work computer, he certainly has voted from this machine, and jcar always uses this machine. So unless we're still under observation, and the ax is waiting to fall, you can have multiple family members on one computer. :D |
I think they look at the way you vote, and the way you guys interact on DPC. If jcar logs off so  vawendy can log on and you both are in the same location doing the same thing like voting on the same pictures or giving the same votes to the same pictures then I would think that would send up a red flag. I'm sure they watch or monitor different usernames with the same IP address. My wife has a username on DPC as well (she doesn't get on as much as I do) but 2+ usernames look suspicious then chances are, they are! |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:18:45 AM · #138 |
There is no problem whatsoever with members of a family, office, school, whatever, sharing a computer to use DPC. The problem comes when our statistics indicate that people are trading high votes with one another (or if we become suspicious that someone has been maintaining a duplicate account).
You are also allowed to vote on shots, even if you know who took them.
The problem occurs when people cast their votes according to who took them, rather than casting votes according to the artistic values of the shots. If you have a friend who entered a shot, and you know which shot it is... don't vote on it if you can't do so without bias.
Originally posted by togtog:
I am curious. How does DPC handle the case of several family members sharing a PC or a home internet connection and all having an interest in dpc? |
|
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:20:50 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
There is no problem whatsoever with members of a family, office, school, whatever, sharing a computer to use DPC. The problem comes when our statistics indicate that people are trading high votes with one another (or if we become suspicious that someone has been maintaining a duplicate account).
You are also allowed to vote on shots, even if you know who took them.
The problem occurs when people cast their votes according to who took them, rather than casting votes according to the artistic values of the shots. If you have a friend who entered a shot, and you know which shot it is... don't vote on it if you can't do so without bias.
Originally posted by togtog:
I am curious. How does DPC handle the case of several family members sharing a PC or a home internet connection and all having an interest in dpc? |
|
and if you vote every picture they enter with a 9 or 10, you may not be voting without bias. :) |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:22:26 AM · #140 |
I am certainly not privy to the inside info on how they find cheats. However this is what I suspect is going on: If multiple accounts are entering or voting from one IP address they it will put up a "flag". They will then look at how these accounts interact with each other. As long as the accounts are not simply voting with favouritism towards each other or interacting with each other on the forums in such a way that it appears it could be one person...then it would be considered normal, family usage. If the multiple accounts from one IP addy show the same voting patterns and seem to favour each other, or act up in the forums in such a way that they appear to be one person...then more intensive monitoring is done.
As I said, that is simply pure speculation on my part, but my prediction.
ETA, apparently lots of us were posting at the same time and this has been properly answered by two members of SC. :)
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 10:23:46. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:35:26 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
As I said, that is simply pure speculation on my part, but my prediction. |
A lot of that is valid, but the actual process would be very impressive for the layperson to see in person.
What often happens is, we'll be sitting around in the SC Lounge, sipping tea and discussing our favorite users ( Scalvert often has a few ladies gently waving palm branches at him... not sure what's up with that). Two DPC users, somewhere on planet Earth, will begin trading high votes with one another, and a large, red light will start flashing, synchronized by a loud "WOOOP WOOOP WOOOP!" alert.
We'll all run down the hall, past our giant Woody statue, and we'll slide down the Rose Memorial Fire Pole so we can all climb into the Maestromobile, and we speed off to Smiteland.
I hope that clears things up a little.
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 10:39:59. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:38:11 AM · #142 |
| LOL!! We need that in digits, if you don't mind. A small video which could be hosted on Youtube would be most excellent. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:38:53 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by basssman7:
As I said, that is simply pure speculation on my part, but my prediction. |
A lot of that is valid, but the actual process would be very impressive for the layperson to see in person.
What often happens is, we'll be sitting around in the SC Lounge, sipping tea and discussing our favorite users ( Scalvert often has a few ladies gently waving palm branches at him... not sure what's up with that). Two DPC users, somewhere on planet Earth, will begin trading high votes with one another, and a large, flashing red light will start flashing, synchronized by a loud "WOOOP WOOOP WOOOP!" alert.
We'll all run down the hall, past our giant Woody statue, and we'll slide down the Rose Memorial Fire Pole so we can all climb into the Maestromobile, and we speed off to Smiteland.
I hope that clears things up a little. |
Thanks for the chuckle, I needed that today. :) (and you, you, you said "the name that shall not be spoken!") |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 10:49:32 AM · #144 |
Is there an effective blocking mechanism preventing "rugskid" from creating a new account at DPC? Assuming he creates a new email (anonymous at yahoo, hotmail, gmail, etc.) and use a proxy IP address? Has the site council considered requiring a verifiable, private email (one which is attached to a financial payment? e.g. email through our ISP or Apple.)
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 10:50:10. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 11:03:37 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Is there an effective blocking mechanism preventing "rugskid" from creating a new account at DPC? Assuming he creates a new email (anonymous at yahoo, hotmail, gmail, etc.) and use a proxy IP address? Has the site council considered requiring a verifiable, private email (one which is attached to a financial payment? e.g. email through our ISP or Apple.) |
If we're really serious about "one account, one user" then we probably should consider a strategy something like this. There are a number of possible techniques that make it much more difficult for one person to open multiple accounts. There are other ways to ferret out duplicate accounts, but as this "pair" shows, it's possible to maintain the ruse of there actually being two people for quite some time. Eventually, though, they all slip up. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 11:18:20 AM · #146 |
You should have two accounts Fritz, one Kirbic and Other Breakfastic!!! You could treat yourself to bacon and eggs when you have DPC GTG's with yourself. hmmm that has me thinking. But guess what, Breakfast just isn't the same here, Unless you go to the one and only Denny's and I have heard that you actually have to make reservations there. Isn't that a hoot????? For the most part I think the breakfasts at resturants here is about a 2 on a 1-10 scale. Compared to some of the places we have chowed at GTG's.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Is there an effective blocking mechanism preventing "rugskid" from creating a new account at DPC? Assuming he creates a new email (anonymous at yahoo, hotmail, gmail, etc.) and use a proxy IP address? Has the site council considered requiring a verifiable, private email (one which is attached to a financial payment? e.g. email through our ISP or Apple.) |
If we're really serious about "one account, one user" then we probably should consider a strategy something like this. There are a number of possible techniques that make it much more difficult for one person to open multiple accounts. There are other ways to ferret out duplicate accounts, but as this "pair" shows, it's possible to maintain the ruse of there actually being two people for quite some time. Eventually, though, they all slip up. |
|
|
|
|
09/19/2009 11:21:35 AM · #147 |
I think checking via IP is a pretty daft way to try to detect multiple accounts.
For example, when Angela, my other half, visits my website from work it says..
Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Essex County Council (194.72.123.7)
And when someone else from the thousands employed by Essex County Council view my site it says
Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Essex County Council (194.72.123.7)
It doesnt matter if they connect from the Harlow offices or all the way on the other side of the county in the Clacton offices.
I think its called NAT, so there is one visible IP address with possibly thousands behind a handful of addresses. So I personally think you should give Kenskid benefit of the doubt - if its a case of friend voting - well, that`s happened on here before many times and generally the persons involved get a temporary ban, slap them with a months ban and keep an eye on them in future.
Job done.
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 11:25:20. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 11:47:30 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
You should have two accounts Fritz, one Kirbic and Other Breakfastic!!! You could treat yourself to bacon and eggs when you have DPC GTG's with yourself. hmmm that has me thinking. But guess what, Breakfast just isn't the same here, Unless you go to the one and only Denny's and I have heard that you actually have to make reservations there. Isn't that a hoot????? For the most part I think the breakfasts at resturants here is about a 2 on a 1-10 scale. Compared to some of the places we have chowed at GTG's. |
I feel for ya Brian... there are very few places like the Midwest for a good, rib-stickin' breakfast. But you do have a *lot* of things going for you down under... well, except for the upside-down thang ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-09-19 11:53:19. |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 11:53:02 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Simms:
...I think its called NAT, so there is one visible IP address with possibly thousands behind a handful of addresses. So I personally think you should give Kenskid benefit of the doubt - if its a case of friend voting - well, that`s happened on here before many times and generally the persons involved get a temporary ban, slap them with a months ban and keep an eye on them in future.
Job done. |
Yep, NAT makes IP addresses within a network (even a home network) invisible to the outside. There are still ways to sniff out the bad actors though, even using the relatively crude IP address method. I'm not going any further than that, well, for obvious reasons.
Also, suffice to say that Kenskid very effectively hung himself, methinks. The SC eye had been on him for some time, and they would not have acted in that manner were they not *very* sure.
As I posted above, I do think it would be good to institute a more rigorous system. There is one definite problem with doing so, however, and that is the "barrier to entry" that such a system represents. If you make it even a *little* harder to get in the door, you will turn away a percentage of those who happen across the site. Now, whether that has a measurable impact, that's another question, and I'm not the one to answer that (nor are the SC, for that matter). |
|
|
|
09/19/2009 05:01:08 PM · #150 |
| Maybe when we submit a photo we need another check box, one that states "No one who votes on this photo can identify it as mine." -- well, that was kind of clumsy, but you get the idea. |
|
