| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2015 03:31:19 PM · #101 |
Paul [/quote]
As has already been said by other SC members, we thought that rather than just suspend them and say nothing we should remind people that we are diligent to such matters as it is our intention to run such checks from time to time and perhaps more frequently than we have in the past.
I hope that helps to offer some context. Yes this provides the context that folks were looking for!
We would like the members to return, this isn't because they are due any special treatment (that wouldn't apply to anyone), it's simply because like all our members they offer up photos and comments and forum postings and (for better or for worse) votes! That's what this community is about - we need you people! I think it would be harder for them to return if they had been named.
I agree that being named would make it difficult for them to reenter the community post suspension. Seems like the SC really handled this situation with care and concern for all involved
I've been concerned to read comments in this thread about us coming across as condescending. I was truly upset by that; of course that wasn't our intention but we also have to take some responsibility for how we came across regardless of our motivations.
Feelings of condescension are hard to avoid, and totally are in the "eyes of the beholder", some folks are more sensitive to that emotion than others, I think we know that the SC is really trying to do the right thing and if a few words strike you as "off" give them the benefit of the doubt
Paul [/quote] |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 03:45:38 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
There shouldn't be a "trial by forum", but the individuals, their actions, SC deliberations and the consequences imposed by SC should be visible to all. |
We have done half of that. This is a moderated website. That moderation is done by people. Those people will from time to time be expected to act. Those actions will sometimes not align with some of the expectations of some of the members.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread did ask for your opinions on this matter which you (and others) have generously given. I thank you for them.
I think I've given enough context on these particular two cases and need to do other things now. The thread remains open for viewpoints but my view remains that SC have acted proportionately, responsibly and within our remit. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 04:27:06 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by cutout:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cutout:
of course
they should be outed
better one honest dpcer than a 1000 crooks:-)))))))) |
I seem to recall someone on this site being named and shamed to the glee of many, only to find out later that there was no wrongdoing.
Sorry, no "outings" for me.
Ray |
aah,
justice should be seen |
Just what would be gained in a scenario where the person was found to be not guilty.
Similarly, in the case those culpable of the action shown above, what added value is there in naming the individual. The penalty is remains the same and you should be happy since the justice meted out is in fact made public.
The only thing not present is the "outing" and that my friend ought not be an issue of consideration in the application of justice, other than in those cases where the transgressor was banned from the site.
If indeed Justice should be seen for all transgression, we should ask the various religious denominations make acknowledgement of wrongdoings a public matter.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 04:28:32 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by Spork99:
There shouldn't be a "trial by forum", but the individuals, their actions, SC deliberations and the consequences imposed by SC should be visible to all. |
We have done half of that. This is a moderated website. That moderation is done by people. Those people will from time to time be expected to act. Those actions will sometimes not align with some of the expectations of some of the members.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread did ask for your opinions on this matter which you (and others) have generously given. I thank you for them.
I think I've given enough context on these particular two cases and need to do other things now. The thread remains open for viewpoints but my view remains that SC have acted proportionately, responsibly and within our remit. |
Half of that is simply not enough I've never heard of vicitms having their aggressors identity withheld from them, that is just not correct.
I appreciate all the effort SC has given to this affair but the outcome is simply wrong.
I will ask again: did the main victim get to know what was done and by who ? |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 04:41:49 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Half of that is simply not enough I've never heard of vicitms having their aggressors identity withheld from them, that is just not correct.
I appreciate all the effort SC has given to this affair but the outcome is simply wrong.
I will ask again: did the main victim get to know what was done and by who ? |
John, it's been asked and answered. Paul answered you. There are REPERCUSSIONS. It's not our job to go into peoples' lives and stir up a hornet's nest. We're not policemen. We are moderators. It's our job to see that rules are followed on an internet site. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 04:45:32 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Half of that is simply not enough I've never heard of vicitms having their aggressors identity withheld from them, that is just not correct. |
This isn't a mugging. Nobody was injured, and no property stolen or damaged. Private matters between individuals will be known to themselves and should not concern anyone else. DPC rules forbid calling out people for rules infractions, and that generally goes for SC as well. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 04:53:41 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Paul:
...
We have, in this round of ongoing checks, suspended two individuals:
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
The degree of malice and overall impact of activity has informed our decision as to the duration of the penalty. |
Thank you, Paul (and SC). This is exactly the amount of detail I think should be given.
It educates us, fulfills our curiosity, comforts us that SC is working hard on our behalf, and renews the rules in our minds.
I do have one more question. Has the person who received the "targeted" one votes been told of the crime against him (privately, I hope)? I think that's fair since the crime was done to him, even if he didn't know it.
Edit to Add: I still don't think it's necessary to tell the name of the Perp to the victim (I love it that there is forgiveness here... and a chance to start over), but if a crime had been committed against me, I'd want to know too.
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 16:56:45. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 05:01:45 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Originally posted by Paul:
...
We have, in this round of ongoing checks, suspended two individuals:
Individual 1: For low voting affecting most participants in a challenge. This appears to us to be bad judgment made in response to pique in relation to own score. We have given a 2 months suspension.
Individual 2: Targeted votes of 1 over a period of more than a year to a single user where the identity of the photographer is apparent. We have given a 3 month suspension.
The degree of malice and overall impact of activity has informed our decision as to the duration of the penalty. |
Thank you, Paul (and SC). This is exactly the amount of detail I think should be given.
It educates us, fulfills our curiosity, comforts us that SC is working hard on our behalf, and renews the rules in our minds.
I do have one more question. Has the person who received the "targeted" one votes been told of the crime against him (privately, I hope)? I think that's fair since the crime was done to him, even if he didn't know it.
Edit to Add: I still don't think it's necessary to tell the name of the Perp to the victim (I love it that there is forgiveness here... and a chance to start over), but if a crime had been committed against me, I'd want to know too. |
Wonderful amount of detail! It's very appreciated.
(I wouldn't tell the user that was targeted. It really doesn't help anything. I think it would just be hurtful. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 05:02:04 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jagar:
Half of that is simply not enough I've never heard of vicitms having their aggressors identity withheld from them, that is just not correct. |
This isn't a mugging. Nobody was injured, and no property stolen or damaged. Private matters between individuals will be known to themselves and should not concern anyone else. DPC rules forbid calling out people for rules infractions, and that generally goes for SC as well. |
The names of those people who violate the law and the consequences they are given aren't made public for the benefit of the victims. It's done in the name of transparency and letting the society understand what is going on. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 06:38:56 PM · #110 |
Thank you SC for your vigilance, action and information. I think you have handled it well.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2015 06:46:28 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Thank you SC for your vigilance, action and information. I think you have handled it well. |
+1 |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 06:52:59 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The names of those people who violate the law and the consequences they are given aren't made public for the benefit of the victims. It's done in the name of transparency and letting the society understand what is going on. |
In law, even criminal law, while the crime may be reported, not all factors are reported to the public in some instances.
Under the current circumstances, you are not dealing with a law but rather a set of rules that are specific to this venue. The members have been informed as to what went on, what remedial actions were taken, and those guilty have been informed of what will transpired should there be a recurrence of this transgression. What you are advocating here would be akin to having banks print a list of all persons who were overdrawn in their account. The actions do not fit the crime.
Naming people will serve absolutely no useful purpose and I for one applaud the manner in which this was dealt with by the SC.
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 18:54:04. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 07:42:34 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The names of those people who violate the law and the consequences they are given aren't made public for the benefit of the victims. It's done in the name of transparency and letting the society understand what is going on. |
In law, even criminal law, while the crime may be reported, not all factors are reported to the public in some instances.
Under the current circumstances, you are not dealing with a law but rather a set of rules that are specific to this venue. The members have been informed as to what went on, what remedial actions were taken, and those guilty have been informed of what will transpired should there be a recurrence of this transgression. What you are advocating here would be akin to having banks print a list of all persons who were overdrawn in their account. The actions do not fit the crime.
Naming people will serve absolutely no useful purpose and I for one applaud the manner in which this was dealt with by the SC.
Ray |
Not ALL factors, but certainly the identity of the perpetrator in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Your analogy is absolutely incorrect. The banks have no authority to punish. Here on DPC the SC are, among other things acting as law enforcement along with judge, jury and executioner. The SC can enact the harshest penalty allowed, banning. They can excommunicate a member from the society of DPC without any transparency in the process. Now if the bank could exact the ultimo penalty, you might be onto something.
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 19:43:28. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 07:52:32 PM · #114 |
Can some computer-code person please explain to me in layperson language, why you cannot simply write a line or two of code that will pick up on suspiciously low voting patterns IMMEDIATELY and alert the SC that weird-ass stuff is going on?
I mean, come on, seriously. I can't write code nowadays to save my life, but starting at age 15 I was coding in Apple BASIC like no tomorrow. By my early 20s I was writing code that did my taxes - this was probably aeons before all those free online tax programs.
So if li'l old me can figure out how to do s**t like that, wtf can't some computer genius here (or hire someone if necessary) to write code that detects suspicious voting patterns? How difficult can that be?!
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan,  Strikeslip aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
So, sorry Spiffy but that's why I haven't jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and gone for a Slippy challenge. In the end the guy was a huge cheat. I don't have anything to do with people like that, in real life or online.
So....SC? Answers?
Message edited by Bear_Music - corrected false link. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 07:56:01 PM · #115 |
Unfortunately, what I think will happen due to this large exchange in two threads about this issue is... SC will just deal with "perps" and never tell us about them again.
That's what I'd do if I were they and got so much flack for telling us that they did their job.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2015 07:57:03 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
|
he was? |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 07:58:34 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Unfortunately, what I think will happen due to this large exchange in two threads about this issue is... SC will just deal with "perps" and never tell us about them again.
That's what I'd do if I were they and got so much flack for telling us that they did their job. |
hopefully they just adopt  Paul's approach and leave it at that. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:01:55 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
|
he was? |
I recall him creating a ghost account simply to piss off SC, I don't recall him cheating.
We can meet by the flagpole to discuss it though. (A joke.. the very one that got slippy banned btw) |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:09:53 PM · #119 |
What I want to know is did it cause either person to win a ribbon bc of aforementioned topic!
Or forgive me if it's already been asked, haven't read every post entirely. ;$) |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:10:00 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
|
he was? |
I recall him creating a ghost account simply to piss off SC, I don't recall him cheating.
We can meet by the flagpole to discuss it though. (A joke.. the very one that got slippy banned btw) |
@  Cory, I very specifically recall SC mentioning that Slippy had 4 ghost accounts at the time he was booted. So tell me this: if you create ghost accounts, how likely is it that it is to boost your scores and torpedo everyone else? VERY damn likely, I'd say. Why else would it be illegal to have ghost accounts?
@  Neat...can't speak for the most recent offenders b/c they're anonymous, but I do recall Slippy ribboning with a blue shortly before his ban.
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 20:12:36. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:27:11 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
|
he was? |
I recall him creating a ghost account simply to piss off SC, I don't recall him cheating.
We can meet by the flagpole to discuss it though. (A joke.. the very one that got slippy banned btw) |
@ Cory, I very specifically recall SC mentioning that Slippy had 4 ghost accounts at the time he was booted. So tell me this: if you create ghost accounts, how likely is it that it is to boost your scores and torpedo everyone else? VERY damn likely, I'd say. Why else would it be illegal to have ghost accounts?
@ Neat...can't speak for the most recent offenders b/c they're anonymous, but I do recall Slippy ribboning with a blue shortly before his ban. |
OH Right I didn't know that at all, I thought he just decided to leave.
I often see strange named users online after rollover, and wonder who they are! I also check to see who's online quite often esp after I've recvd a one lol!
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 20:27:59. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:47:40 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
...
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts. ...
|
Dang! That's what happened to Slippy?! Never knew that. I always wondered. Hmmph. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 08:59:54 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, Strikeslip aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
So, sorry Spiffy but that's why I haven't jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and gone for a Slippy challenge. In the end the guy was a huge cheat. I don't have anything to do with people like that, in real life or online.
So....SC? Answers? |
That's not correct. As far as I know he had only ONE duplicate account, "Strikeslip2" and he created it and alerted us to it so that we would HAVE to ban him. All the issues with Slippy were social issues, and there was a raft of them for a LONG time. I'm not aware that Slippy was ever accused of cheating, vote manipulation, or the like, and I've done a fair amount of research on this. I could be wrong, but...
Incidentally, the user "spiffy" you referred to in your OP has nothing to do with Strikeslip, so I'm not sure where you get that from...
ETA: Oh, I see, you're talking to Yo_Spiff there...
Message edited by author 2015-03-01 21:02:26. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 09:04:43 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by snaffles:
How long was it, for example, before dear ol' fellow Canuckistan, [user]Strikeslip[/user] aka Slippy held not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 - 4! ghost accounts!! Who knows how much havoc he wreaked on the voting system before he was finally caught and banned?! You can do a helluvalot of damage with that many ghost accounts.
So, sorry Spiffy but that's why I haven't jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon and gone for a Slippy challenge. In the end the guy was a huge cheat. I don't have anything to do with people like that, in real life or online.
So....SC? Answers? |
That's not correct. As far as I know he had only ONE duplicate account, "Strikeslip2" and he created it and alerted us to it so that we would HAVE to ban him. All the issues with Slippy were social issues, and there was a raft of them for a LONG time. I'm not aware that Slippy was ever accused of cheating, vote manipulation, or the like, and I've done a fair amount of research on this. I could be wrong, but...
Incidentally, the user "spiffy" you referred to in your OP has nothing to do with Strikeslip, so I'm not sure where you get that from...
ETA: Oh, I see, you're talking to Yo_Spiff there... |
This is how rumors start thanks for nipping this in the bud. |
|
|
|
03/01/2015 09:50:13 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your analogy is absolutely incorrect. The banks have no authority to punish. |
I think the average fee for overdrawing ones checking account is about $35 ... maybe that's "nothing" to you but to me it represents a significant "punishment" for a relatively trivial offense. |
|
