-->
@Castin
Oh well then. Life will go on for him
Voting Security Discussion
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
122
-->
@Ramshutu
Oh. Cool beans, then.
-->
@Castin
That’s not what happened with AF447
(Also it had gold on board!)
-->
@Castin
Ty for the information, this will help me very much with a debate due in a few hours (oh hot damn, I trick you didn't I)
-->
@Ramshutu
The story I got was the pitot tubes iced over and the plane's computer was unable to get airspeed information, so it turned itself off. The pitot tubes cleared a minute later, but the autopilot remained off. What happened afterward was a result of the pilots being unable to correctly respond to that situation. To grossly oversimplify. A complete address of all factors would be too exhausting for my lazy ass at the mo'.
I believe what I read was this word for word transcript of everything that went on in that cockpit. You can start reading at:
"At 2:02 am, the captain leaves the flight deck to take a nap. Within 15 minutes, everyone aboard the plane will be dead."
No one read this article if you're not prepared for a terrifying story about a pilot irrationally pulling back on the joystick until his plane falls out of the sky. And he and the other pilots have no idea he is causing that situation, or that all he had to do was stop pulling back on the stick.
I notice this article is dated 2011, though, so my understanding of events may be outdated.
-->
@bsh1
I don't have a permanent IPA - I get a new one each time I connect to my ISP.
In the last 5 minutes I disconnected/reconnected and got assigned
188.31.197.78
188.31.187.250
94.196.164.206
Jus' sayin.
-->
@Ramshutu
you can spend days working on a debate and then nobody votes on it.when people do vote on your debate their RFD makes no sense.when mods review RFD's their opinions are too vague.These three things are literally the reason I attempt to vote on every single debate that there is with as comprehensive an RfD as I can. People may not always agree with how I come down, but I do my absolute best to be as dispassionate and fair as I can.I was far too pissed off in DDO at every other debate being a 0:0 draw
I appreciate your contribution.
-->
@Ramshutu
PM #1: “Hey, do you have a second to talk about your vote?”......PM #371: “I can’t believe you ignored the argument about widgets.Me : “I literally dedicated 50% of my RfD to your widgets.”PM #372: “You just ignored it”Me: “Seriously, read the RfD”PM #373: “But in the part about the widgets you brought in external information”Me: “You mean the part where your opponent disproved it?”PM: #374: “yeah, where did the opponent say widgets are too large?”Me: “in the part where he said “the widgets are too large to fit”.PM: #375: “But you ignored my whole argument about widgets. That’s not Tabula Rasa man.”Me: “How are you a teacher?”^^^This is literally every time I’ve placed a vote against magic.
Exactly.
-->
@David
I have another proposal.
What do you think of the idea of assigning 5 random voters (who have opted-in for voting) to each completed debate.
Only the randomly assigned voters would be able to vote on any particular debate.
This would disincentivize duplicate accounts and prevent vote bombing.
-->
@3RU7AL
This would be interesting. I proposed before creating a voting bloc like we had on DDO. We'd assign someone to be the voting czar and assign people to vote
-->
@David
This would be interesting. I proposed before creating a voting bloc like we had on DDO. We'd assign someone to be the voting czar and assign people to vote
Yes, or some variation. This would keep people from being able to cherry pick either their "friends" or "enemies" debates with targeted votes.
-->
@3RU7AL
Debating seems very complicated. How many debaters are there on DA?
-->
@David
@3RU7AL
I think the main issue is that you want as many people to vote on debates - whom are verified - as possible to even out opinion and point of view. Even in the real world you can have multiple judges coming up with different decisions and more votes tend to balance that out.
You could have an opt in mode that allows only “verified” voters to vote on your debate, and we could have stricter controls on who is verified or. It compared to regular voters. The only issue with that is that I’m sure everyone would use this mode, meaning that if you’re not “verified” you’re not going to be able to make many votes normally
-->
@keithprosser
Debating seems very complicated. How many debaters are there on DA?
Participants in total: 468
But only 38 have participated in 3 or more debates. [LINK]
-->
@Ramshutu
I think the main issue is that you want as many people to vote on debates - whom are verified - as possible to even out opinion and point of view. Even in the real world you can have multiple judges coming up with different decisions and more votes tend to balance that out.You could have an opt in mode that allows only “verified” voters to vote on your debate, and we could have stricter controls on who is verified or. It compared to regular voters. The only issue with that is that I’m sure everyone would use this mode, meaning that if you’re not “verified” you’re not going to be able to make many votes normally
I think the problem is that if you want more voters, you need to LOWER the barriers to entry (optionally remove the RFD requirement).
IntelligenceSquared has an (unqualified) audience vote simply "PRO" or "CON" depending on which side they found "more convincing".
The same people vote before the debate based on simply the debate resolution and then again after each round.
Then at the end, the team that swayed the most voters from their initial position is granted the win.
I believe the attempted pursuit of BOTH volume and "quality" is a losing proposition.
-->
@3RU7AL
Some people want to top the leaderboard and some people just want to thrash out a specific issue with bit more structure than the forums allow occasionaly.
I think the two may not mix too well.
-->
@3RU7AL
While I do like your optimism about anonymous internet people and their behaviour, this is the same internet that brought you Boaty McBoatface and the new Mountain Dew Flavour “Hitler did nothing wrong”.
I2 is a form of live debate with prominent individuals who are not that invested in winning, and who’s followers or compatriots are not also invested in winning, and there is no active competition between participants and voters (such as today’s participants are tomorrow’s voters and vice versa). The competitive debate aspect of this site is a key selling point.
With a limited community, many would be honest, some would not: and it wouldn’t not take long for such unrestricted voting to undermine fair competition - as it did in DDO.
-->
@Ramshutu
With a limited community, many would be honest, some would not: and it wouldn’t not take long for such unrestricted voting to undermine fair competition - as it did in DDO.
You make some fair points, but I'd prefer a "thumbs up / thumbs down" system over the existing system at this point.
Both systems have their inherent flaws, but the existing system does not eliminate bias or cheating and involves exponentially more effort by moderators and voters.
Either way it still boils down to opinion, and the opinion of the people who supposedly validate or invalidate the opinions of others.
-->
@Ramshutu
Even if IP's dont do anything, a breach is still serious
Look I am not going risk my identity for a moderator to track whether or not I followed the rules
An alternative like the follow I presented is feasible enough
-->
@David
(1) Require 3 debates that have at least 3 rounds, are not forfeited, and are not troll debates; OR(2) Require at least 500 quality forum posts; OR(3) Prove to the moderator team that you understand the voting process by giving us three quality RFDs plus 200 forum posts
Here's my modification to that.
1) Require at least 2 debates that have at least 3 rounds, are not forfeited, and are not troll debates; OR
2) Require at least 5 quality fourm posts. OR:
3) Prove to the moderator team that you understand the voting process
I can literally fake your ip address and pretend to be you. Are you going to ban yourself? You guys need to stop being retarded with this shit. No wonder wylted left.
@Wylted.
Wrong, that is not doable. With phone numbers and spoofing as someone else via good hacking skills, it is fairly possible due to a glitch in how operators ensure it is the actual owner of the number using Skype or something like that but with IP what you suggested is impossible unless the other person is using the same VPN service as you.
Do not tell me I am ignorant, I know every detail about what hackers can do, I just don't know all the details of how to actually do all of it.
It's true that your IP will be very similar to Virtuoso's as you live so close together, if you both use the same ISP. However, the last 3 numbers of yours will be unique to a set of IPs that you use, never being identical to his last 3 (but the last 3 can be the same last 3 as someone else's last 3 who doesn't use your ISP or live in your area).
-->
@Vader
Look I am not going risk my identity for a moderator to track whether or not I followed the rules
It is technically impossible for you to view any web-page without revealing your IP address to the host.
-->
@3RU7AL
This. Even though the mods can't see it, the hosts certainly can and does.
-->
@David
(1) Require 3 debates that have at least 3 rounds, are not forfeited, and are not troll debatesSo users who like to vote but not debate would effectively be purged from the voting pool with this option?It's possible, which is why we might be able to do a combination of what I propose
Well it's up to you debaters as to how much of a loss that would be. You're the ones who'd be losing voters.
There may not be many of us non-debating voters. Axing us might not be a huge loss.
Also, in case someone wants to point out that some industrial areas are going to have over 999 people living there making my 'last 3 non-identical' point seem wrong. What they do is they force more rural areas to give-up their server and be the server someone in the nearby city uses if less than 999 in that area are using it at that time. So, I am correct, it's just they do what you may not expect to ensure that more than 1k users in the same 'area' never have the same last 3 numbers at any given time, meaning 'area' changes for people in the same actual area, IP-wise, especially if you live on the edge of your area.