Other Unethical Manipulation of CAP Polls

[Shade of Elysia]

If such a rule were to be installed, I think it'd be most useful to say that someone has to has registered before the first piece of art was posted in the first art thread of that CaP.

I think recruiting is quite a lot harder if you have to tell a large group of people (especially ones you don't know) "Register there, and then in a couple of days come back and vote for an artwork, except I don't know yet which artwork".

That's a good idea, it makes it much harder to just tell people to vote for X since most people won't go to the effort if it will take a few days. Personally, I have to say that since I just came in at the beginning of this CAP, I would have probably left if I wasn't allowed to vote on anything. Yet this would just make them have to wait for the next poll. I hope it can be implemented.

Also, in response to Foible's, chances are if they are being recruited through Smogon they'll have a much easier time curbing it seeing as it would probably be through PMs and forum posts.

 

[Goodbar]

^That and maybe a 50 PC limit may help curb some of the recruiting/alt voting, but there's probably no way to solve the issue entirely. While it is a travesty, at least there plenty of fantastic artists and the final piece usually is more than deserving to be chosen; these issues seem to affect the final poll mainly (on that note has any investigation been done in other polls?)

 

[AgentLym]

Does this mean that all the contestants from the beginning or semi-finals now have a chance to be finalists if enough votes were cheated? Or are the votes being 'recounted' for just the final two that was left?

 

[pkmn-taicho321]

If such a rule were to be installed, I think it'd be most useful to say that someone has to has registered before the first piece of art was posted in the first art thread of that CaP.

I think recruiting is quite a lot harder if you have to tell a large group of people (especially ones you don't know) "Register there, and then in a couple of days come back and vote for an artwork, except I don't know yet which artwork".

The only problem with this is that some people start show casing their work before the art thread is even open.

 

[Griffin]

The only problem with this is that some people start show casing their work before the art thread is even open.

That's true. How about when the typing has been decided upon? It would be rather fruitless to start designing before that.

Edit (because now it feels like I just ignored you): @ Foibles, that is indeed an annoying flaw, but I don't see a proper way to stop that.

 

[petrie911]

If such a rule were to be installed, I think it'd be most useful to say that someone has to has registered before the first piece of art was posted in the first art thread of that CaP.

I think recruiting is quite a lot harder if you have to tell a large group of people (especially ones you don't know) "Register there, and then in a couple of days come back and vote for an artwork, except I don't know yet which artwork".

This seems unnecessarily limiting. Perhaps better is to say that you may only vote in a poll if you have registered before the start of it. This way, if someone discovers CaP in the middle of the art process, he won't be left out of the vote simply because he got there too late.

 

[Xellos]

It's really quite childish to cheat on something like this. Someone creating an alternate account should be instantly banned IMO as it's against the rules. As far as dealing with people that recruit votes... I'm not really sure what to do about that. I do like the idea of putting a warning message in the OP of all poll topics.

 

[Amelia]

I think before we continue, we need to define what forms of cheating are currently present on the polls, whether it is truly treating, or legal, and then only discuss about how to stop it.

 

[Plus]

I think this is really inevitable, sadly. If we want to set a standard in order to vote, you lose popularity for CaP and it loses the democratic feel of CaP. It's really hard to avoid this kind of situation, and although it happens, there isn't much we can do about it. As many have said before, there is no way to prove that somebody isn't lying, and that alone is a reason as to why this is quite unavoidable.

Most of the voters are "swing by CaP and vote wtfever you like," so if we are addressing something as specific as recruited votes, I don't really see why we are allowing uneducated voting. That too is inevitable, simply because it is the process of CaP. It's a democratic process in a very big forum, meaning that there will be idiots voting. It's pretty much impossible to avoid with such a large userbase and our current philosophies. If CaP server has about 30 people per day while polls on cap projects go to the hundreds, I could say that the population of the CaP forum is uneducated. And yet, they have the same voting rights as a person who is educated in CaP and actually gets their ass on the server to test out what they are getting themselves into.

I'm not so sure how you can really avoid this unless we go super elitist and make CaP available to a select few members, which I am totally against. It's great and all to address this -- sadly, I doubt we can do much.

 

[zarator]

I pretty much support Plus on this. This is the issue of any democracy. How many times have we seen a politician who objectively is an idiot but he is so popular he gets the vote anyway? And how many times have we seen people going on a "recruiting program" on sites like said Facebook just in order to grab more votes, even from unaware people? As a billion people said, "democracies aren't perfect".

So, while I feel it is right to bring this up just not to make us fool ourselves into thinking something is more fair than it really is - it is actually an inevitable issue as long as we do not want to give up on the democratic nature of the CAP project.

 

[Deucalion2]

Then why use democracy when a noocracy is a much better system? Democracy isn't succesful, it just keeps people happy. I think we have to decide whether we want people to be happy with CaP, or for CaP to fulfil its aims. I know which one I'd prefer.

 

[pkmn-taicho321]

I know it's been brought up before people have decided not to do it, but what about blind polling?

 

[Deucalion2]

I still think all polls should be bold vote and all people below 50 posts shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's not like it's really that difficult a target, and most democracies require at least some form of boundary - for example, being of a high enough age. Thing of the 50 posts as a coming of age - now said user is allowed to vote.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I am strongly against a post count requirement. That's not going to accomplish anything; boards like Firebot, RMT and such will simply get a sudden spike in terrible pc+ posts.

The solution that makes sense to me would be to simply only allow votes from members with a join date considerably earlier than the date of the art poll. Of course this has its flaws, but it would solve the problem, and without spamming up all the other boards in the process.

As far as I can see, there isn't really an alternative other than to put up with it, perma-banning anyone who cheats, as Plus said. I'm not really a big fan of that solution, as it creates a lot of stress for the TL, the artists, the mods, and yourself.

I am in agreement, however, with Plus, that there is nothing we can do to stop idiots from voting. There no doubt will be people who wander in from some other board by accident, notice the art poll, and pick one. However, those people have been a part of the CAP process from the beginning; that's how it's always been. Everyone's always known that there would be voters who never visit the server, and everyone's always agreed that that's how it should stay. However, those voters are not the same ones that have been doing the cheating (as far as I know).

What I would like to know is: What group of people has been making alternate accounts to vote and/or encouraging foreign parties to join and vote for their choice? Is it the server regulars (which I doubt very much, but it has to be considered because they'd be most affected by the results) the total strangers from distant sub-forums, the CAP forum-goers, or an entirely different group?

I don't think we can come up with a solution to this problem until we know a little more about it.

Sorry, this post is terribly disorganized. I've just been spewing out whatever came to mind.

 

[Gir!]

Ummm, please, feel free to correct me if Im wrong, but arent the admins able to ban certain IP directions? If so, wouldnt it be easier to make a period of time in which 2 accounts cant be created if they have the same IP? You know, like saying "hey, you made an account from this computer 5 days ago, so you wont be able to make another for other 25". I know alts are against the rules, but, lets face it, they will always exists, this could, at the very least, help to reduce them

 

[Aerodactyl Legend]

If such a rule were to be installed, I think it'd be most useful to say that someone has to has registered before the first piece of art was posted in the first art thread of that CaP.

As what KoA said, [that won't help because] people make alternate accounts months before the polls just to avoid being subject to suspicion.

I'd think of something more like just handing out simple referrals and bans. Would putting members on "blacklists" be going to far for this?

 

[Korski]

On the democracy issue, there has never been a workable direct democracy. in a representative democracy (U.S., U.K., France, Mexico, basically every "western" country, etc.), the people elect a few of their own to make decisions for them all.

so...

Maybe the TL deals with it however he/she wants? Like, post quota or join date requirements, blind voting, whatever can be chosen by the TL for the entire process or even for each poll individually. Like, the first art poll can be open to everyone, the second could require that the person have voted in the first poll, the third could require that they voted in the second poll, etc. Or the TL could just say that a person needs fifty posts to vote but can still post comments on the thread. There are lots of possibilities with this idea, I think, that would avoid the rigid pros and cons of creating a hard-fast rule.

 

[zyrefredric]

Ummm, please, feel free to correct me if Im wrong, but arent the admins able to ban certain IP directions? If so, wouldnt it be easier to make a period of time in which 2 accounts cant be created if they have the same IP? You know, like saying "hey, you made an account from this computer 5 days ago, so you wont be able to make another for other 25". I know alts are against the rules, but, lets face it, they will always exists, this could, at the very least, help to reduce them

well why not make it in such a way that no two accounts could be made with one IP address, indefinitely
that way it would be more of an effort for someone to create alt accounts coz then he would have to use different PCs all the time ^_^
(heheh, really i only have a vague understanding of how the internet worksd, so i'm not sure if this could work, much more if possible)

 

[Objection]

well why not make it in such a way that no two accounts could be made with one IP address

I thought such a system was already in place?

 

[Gir!]

well why not make it in such a way that no two accounts could be made with one IP address, indefinitely
that way it would be more of an effort for someone to create alt accounts coz then he would have to use different PCs all the time ^_^
(heheh, really i only have a vague understanding of how the internet worksd, so i'm not sure if this could work, much more if possible)

Well, at first I wanted to say that too, however, I thought of a small, yet important issue: what if the IP addres came from a public computer? You know, clubs, houses with many sons etc.

 

[pkmn-taicho321]

Perhaps it's time we separate CAP from Smogon? Some time ago people wanted to make a CAP website. This will keep people from voting just because they happened by the CAP forums, and we could start a referral system, were the people that join CAP must have a referrer from CAP vouch for them. New members without referrals would be scrutinized by Admins to ensure no Alt accounts were being made. Maybe it's heavy step to take just for the art polls, but surely if this goes on it will effect other parts of the process.

 

[Stellar]

Perhaps it's time we separate CAP from Smogon? Some time ago people wanted to make a CAP website. This will keep people from voting just because they happened by the CAP forums, and we could start a referral system, were the people that join CAP must have a referrer from CAP vouch for them. New members without referrals would be scrutinized by Admins to ensure no Alt accounts were being made. Maybe it's heavy step to take just for the art polls, but surely if this goes on it will effect other parts of the process.

Yeah don't think this is gonna happen bud.

 

[KoA]

That just seems like an unnecessary hassle, to be honest.

Plus I can quickly see interest in CaP die off if such a thing were to happen.

 

[Griffin]

As what KoA said, [that won't help because] people make alternate accounts months before the polls just to avoid being subject to suspicion.

I was under the impression that this (making accounts months before) was primarily done with alts that would be discovered while checking IPs anyway.

The thing I posted was mostly to deal with recruiting "from the outside".

 

[Bird]

Hm, perhaps an odd suggestion. However, could there a rule that all participants would have to 'sign up' at the start of a new CAP to register their voice and votes? There doesn't need to be some kind of requirement, just an 'I'm interested-post' would suffice.

Technically seen, it would be a hassle (usergroups? ;x). However, this does not discriminate new users and with 8 CAP's I think that people can be pretty sure that this is not a one-time-only-thing, so if someone stumbles upon it during the process they can just sit it out and lurk until the next, right?

It may not be a permanent solution, but it could cut the crap for at least one project.