An Open Letter to Simon Joinson, Editor-in-Chief, DPR.

Started May 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Tim A2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,097
Like?
Re: Should I be optimistic?
In reply to RaptorUK, May 8, 2013

RaptorUK wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

RaptorUK wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

RaptorUK wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

You are probably right, as always, but I want to be optimistic. After all Simon did say, "For now, keep reporting them to me, and I'll keep killing their accounts. It's all I can do." I wouldn't say you are being pessimistic, though, more like realistic. Wouldn't it be so simple and effective if the hosts reported em and DPR eliminated them.

Tim

Lets take one example . . .  http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50862654  Tanver,  he was identified as a Cheat a long time ago,   more recently DPR made him a Host . . .  I personally reported this to Simon Joinson on 15th Feb . . .  has Tanver's account been killed ?

Where is the action to accompany the words . . .

I do see why you are not optimistic. It's just that thanks to Pat Curley's initiative an opportunity may now exist to accomplish something very significant in a fairly straightforward manner. The ball is clearly in Simon's court. Let's keep the pressure on him to either put up or shut up. All that is needed now is for hosts to report properly identified cases of deviant voter behavior (both cheating and otherwise) to Simon and let the rest of us know whether or not he kills their accounts. If he does indeed come through we will all be much better off. The spotlight is on Simon.

Tim

On what grounds ?  can you define  "deviant voter behaviour" and give me a link to where the rules on voting are written please that prohibit what you are describing?

I am using the standard dictionary definations.

Are you trying to say that Simon can't kill the membership of a deviant voter because there is no rule against deviant voting?

Tim

Of course he can,  just like he used to "ban" some users that had more than one ID  . . . .  even though it was never stated anywhere in the rules or on the signup page that it wasn't allowed . . .  do you think that is fair ?  punish someone for breaking a secret rule ?

It's trivial to create a page that states what the general rules of DPR Challenges are,  for example  rules about voting  . . .   one they are laid out in black and white and brought to voters attention then no voter can claim ignorance,  then life becomes a lot simpler for everyone.

Tactical voting is commonplace in politics,  FaceBook has it's fair share of corrupt "Likes",  what is fair to you or me may well not be to many other people,  the rules have to be clear and published.

Raptor, my advice to Simon is to run the voting rules by you if they are written and that is meant as a compliment. I don't think it would be at all trivial to write rules that would meet your approval.

In the meantime I take it you think there is no immediate recourse against the voter behavior everyone is complaining about. If hosts wanted to set rules against "sandbagging", challenge sabotage, etc. so that there could be recourse do you think they could do it themselves or would they need a lawyer to define "sandbagging", etc. and write the rules, or should they just wait and hope effective voting rules are included in the changes Simon refered to?

By the way it is good to see you posting here again.

Tim

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow