Topic: You must be at least a Jr. Member to vote in polls (Read 2419 times)

You can view results even If you are a newbie but It was probably a bug because I couldn't see the results few days ago too, probably was a bug only for me :

Ok, it seems like that my speculation didn't last too much.


I presume that viewing the results is still allowed to everyone, no mention about that in the OP.

Polls are still pretty worthless, this just makes them slightly less worthless.

Pure speculation here:
Should this (good) move suggest us that in future some minor decisions could be put to the vote?
Has it ever happened in the past?

Just curious, and thanks to anyone can answer.

I totally agree that voting or making a poll feature should be eligible only from Jr. Status, but I think everyone should be able to see results?

In my opinion, the people who want to vote cast their vote transferred and left in the forum.

It's not entirely based on how many posts but how much activity you have. To become a Jnr Member you need 30 activity. You get a max of 14 activity points every two week period as long as you make 14 posts. It's confusing but more details can be found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/forum-rankspositionsbadges-what-do-those-shiny-coins-under-my-name-mean-178608 and here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-definitive-explanation-of-how-activity-works-495948

That's hard, I went through few previous threads about voting and couldn't vote  . What exactly do I need to become a jr.member (how many posts?)

I've seen a couple of polls where users have to vote who gets a certain bounty, so obviously people rig the results with bots in an attempt to win and claim it for themselves.

That doesn't fix the rest of the issues though. And having two categories of accounts creates tenfold more issues. Being allowed to have more than 1 account is here to stay. We are smart enough to realize you can't create a rule that is unenforceable.

Atleast you had the ability to answer the question with out being condescending. Ty for taking your time to address my suggestion sensibly.

That's easily solved by having different account classes (business vs personal).

This is something that has been beaten to death. Limiting sockpuppets is an impossible task. People always say, OH! But I'm a member of "insert forum name" and they limit people to one account! Well yes and no, people can get around any sort of account limiting restrictions if they have the knowhow. With the Bitcoin community, the majority have the knowhow, so putting in standard, or even some new advanced multi account fighting methods would just be deluding ourselves, and giving people a false sense of security from scammers with multiple accounts. There is also the fact that many users here use proxies/Tor because that is the mentality of a large portion of the users here. Going by IP doesn't really help when people can just change IPs in a blink of an eye, and then we end up banning others from using that same IP that are not involved. Thats why the "pay to unban by IP" feature was added, not to generate revenue, but so that people could pay an insignificant single fee but not insignificant for people creating thousands of accounts; to unblock a proxy that they use. Another factor, is that we don't necessarily want to restrict speech. Some people have professional accounts where they have to withold a certain standard, for example if you own a business and have strong political opinions, you wouldn't want your opinions to effect your sales, so that is a reason to legitimately own another account.

Its a double edged sword. People with tons of accounts can use them for nefarious purposes, but punishing everyone for something the few do is something we at least try to avoid. The restriction on not allowing newbies to vote doesn't really hurt many people. It is slightly inconvient for some, but not something major, and the benefit far outweighs the cons.

If there is a will there is a way.

It's not feasible if the forum is to remain open to the public.

You could achieve a close approximation in an invite-only forum.

If every member has to be invited in by another member then the list of accounts would form a tree.

Then you have a policy wherein if any account is ever determined to be a sockpuppet account, then the tree is pruned (mass bans) starting with the account of the person who invited the sockpuppet.

You could use a wide range of heuristics to scan the account db for likely duplicates and flag suspicious ones for manual review.

Lol So you speak for him too?

I don't think that works.
People can still get lots of accounts with dynamic IP.

Thanks theymos.

Just out of curiosity, how can someone get benefits from rigging a poll?

Because you suggested something that is impossible to do. Next time you suggest it, suggest a way to implement it too. Yes, you're right that having more accounts is being dishonest and all of that. But much can't be done here. You could only put restrictions to new accounts that are made to slow down the process (remember, they were removed).

I personally think its slightly dishonest for someone to have 20 accounts, aquire the scammer tag then just move to the other sockpuppet. That to me is as bad as having 100 accounts just for voter fraud, which is obviously a problem worth caring about or we wouldnt have the new limitation of JR member status to slow down voter fraud. I'm not entirely positive on how you could enforce it 100% with out fault just like you wont be able to stop  vote scamming with this new fix. You could however... slow it down.