It can be difficult to put in practice, but I think this idea has serious potential. We could just make it a step (lasting 3 days or more) at the beginning.
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Other Unethical Manipulation of CAP Polls
- Thread starter DougJustDoug
- Start date
- Status
I was actually going to suggest something like this but it seems I was beat to it. I think it would a good idea to do this during the Playtesting period. It could alos add to the emotion of the project, though that is never a good reason for anything.
I think this is a problem we just can't stop. There will always be dishonest people in this world, and by reading here it seems just about impossible to stop.
This would be quite possible I'm sure. Opening up a thread that says something like "CAP X Sign Ups" and that would be open up through the two weeks of playtesting the finished CAP or something along the lines. Then the people that signed up would be eligible to take part in the CAP project. It might work.
This sounds like a good idea, but the people who cheat will probably sign up their alt accounts as well. I mean, there's nothing that we really can do for a long term solution. There was probably cheating in some or the art polls for previous CaPs before Stratagem. It's like in real life, people know they're going to be punished if they get caught breaking the law, but crime actually appears to be increasing.
There really is only 1 way to stop the cheating, and that's by not having art and sprites. No, I'm not suggesting we do this, as I prefer to look at sprites rather than Missingno.
Mods can alt-check to make sure nothing fishy is going on around the Sign Up thread from time to time. Atleast it will cut down on the mass amount of cheaters though. And we can make the sign ups have some questions to remove even more cheaters:
What experience do you have about CAP?
Why do you want to participate?
How long have you been around?
The list could go on.
But for the more experienced and well-known members, they could be automatically signed up with their name on the list and won't have to do the questions. It would basically be only for the newcomers and whatever.
I think that considering that no measure we take will be bulletproof, and only a tiny fraction of votes for almost all polls are dishonest, its not worth hugely inconveniencing the vast majority of voters. In fact it could cut off so many people who just drop by, read a few posts, and vote that the % of dishonest votes could remain constant of even go up (especially considering that people who are willing to cheat now must be pretty motivated), while making CaP significantly less popular and giving the TL a nightmarish job.
Its not something we should jump into. This is a problem but we could create something much worse.
Its not something we should jump into. This is a problem but we could create something much worse.
Great idea. It might alienate a couple of people, because those CAP discussions and whatnot go on for quite a while, but short of it being the first CAP poll, I don't think it'll be a problem. I'm pretty new here, and I came during CAP7. I didn't really get into it, because it was already pretty far in. Basically what i mean is that when someone comes onto this site, it'll take them a while to get into the discussions and everything. Maybe that's just me, but....
One thing I do worry about is people asking someone to sign up at, for example, the time when CAP9 starts. They could say "Hey, could you make an account on this site and vote on this easy clicky poll when I tell you to?" It's gonna get less people to cheat, but lame-o's like this are very persistant.
Another option is to put the number of required postings really low, like 15 or 20. It's high enough that people aren't going to waste time posting relevant stuff that won't get them banned just to vote for something that some random person online wanted them to do.
Either solution will kind of work, but you are still going to get some people cheating. There isn't a perfect solution, but either or both of these will definitely trim back the cheaters.
In all reality, we are stuck at an impass:
Nothing can stop the cheating, without limiting the amount of voters, and therefore, the interest. And whats going to stop someone from "signing up" their alts? Nothing, that process just would make them harder to detect. So that isn't the answer. Limiting the voters to how many posts one has is also bad. You get more comfertable with the community by voting, and then posting. You'll only get arrogant idiots, who come in with a belief that CAP is something other than what it is. Lurking and voting is what makes someone comfertable in the CAP community.
Its a real tradgety that we even have to be discussing this. It really is truely horrible, but it is immpossible to really secure CAP from cheaters.
In the current situation, Cyzir won by 9 votes. I have no doubt that cheating occured. But overturning any community vote would be difficult, unless a huge mass of cheaters were found on one side, and none on the other side. My point is, that cheating will happen, no matter what we do. But it will happen on both sides of the line. So we can't o around overturning every art poll, because we suspect cheaters. We just have to go by the numbers. Its a sad truth, but any limitations will detract honest voters, not people who have enough time to gather up the votes.
Nothing can stop the cheating, without limiting the amount of voters, and therefore, the interest. And whats going to stop someone from "signing up" their alts? Nothing, that process just would make them harder to detect. So that isn't the answer. Limiting the voters to how many posts one has is also bad. You get more comfertable with the community by voting, and then posting. You'll only get arrogant idiots, who come in with a belief that CAP is something other than what it is. Lurking and voting is what makes someone comfertable in the CAP community.
Its a real tradgety that we even have to be discussing this. It really is truely horrible, but it is immpossible to really secure CAP from cheaters.
In the current situation, Cyzir won by 9 votes. I have no doubt that cheating occured. But overturning any community vote would be difficult, unless a huge mass of cheaters were found on one side, and none on the other side. My point is, that cheating will happen, no matter what we do. But it will happen on both sides of the line. So we can't o around overturning every art poll, because we suspect cheaters. We just have to go by the numbers. Its a sad truth, but any limitations will detract honest voters, not people who have enough time to gather up the votes.
I don't see what the big deal is. Unless it gets truly out of hand and something that obviously isn't a serious submission starts getting tons of votes, can't you just let it slide? Especially with the most recent poll, it is clear that both candidates are awesome ideas and neither could be considered a "loss". And unless things like Cartoons' design's logical access the elemental punches or Seismic Toss would make a significant difference, it's virtually the same Pokemon either way.
Your energy is better spent trying to avoid people from rigging concept or stat spread polls, that could make drastic difference.
Your energy is better spent trying to avoid people from rigging concept or stat spread polls, that could make drastic difference.
It's not necessarily all in the art polls. It's just mostly been found there. Regardless, I think that the best solution is still having a limit on the number of before-hand posts. Even like 10 would be ok. Its not that hard to join, hang out in the general discussions forum and get to know the place, is it? It would maybe cut off a couple of people from the CAP forums, but it would rid our polls of nearly every "legal" cheater.
On another slightly different note, I have to agree with Hydrolphin: It's pathetic and shameful that we even have to deal with this.
CAP is more or less a democratic effort. Now I wish I could say that all democracies did not reward cheating, but that does not mean we should.
I really like Fuzznip's suggestion. In addition to experience in general, the mods should create a survey of CAP knowledge. Questions like, "Who was the TL for CAP1?" and, "List the name, typing, ability(ies), and base Stats of CAP1?" should weed out those who don't know CAP from those who do.
@Polelover: First of all, not all alt's are made by people with 0 knowledge of CAP, second, whatever information is required can easily be found WITHIN in the CAP subforum =/
Hey! My name is there!
Can you do a Forum List?
A CAP Voters list... based in that people who frecuently plays in CAP server or that people who participate in CAP forums?
They will have "allowed votes".
If I'm new and I want to participe, when we are starting a new CAP, mods can update this list and add me. Now I'm a CAP Voter, and I can have "allowed votes"
Sorry for my shitty English :p
Can you do a Forum List?
A CAP Voters list... based in that people who frecuently plays in CAP server or that people who participate in CAP forums?
They will have "allowed votes".
If I'm new and I want to participe, when we are starting a new CAP, mods can update this list and add me. Now I'm a CAP Voter, and I can have "allowed votes"
Sorry for my shitty English :p
This is completely true. We can't stop it, and by limiting the voters we are just limiting the interest. I also agree with the user who said that it isn't too big of a deal, it's just art.
That's still not fair, I just came here this CAP, but I shouldnt be excluded because I don't know the topic leader for CAP1.
^ Another thing, I don't know Syclants base stats OR who the first topic leader was, but I've been here for the majority of CAP, should I not be able to vote? =/
- Status