Is there a solution to excessive biased voting using fake A/Cs problem?
Is there an exercisable feasible solution to the excessive biased voting using fake A/Cs problem?
The voting on this site; tends to be biased and we need people to actually read , judge and vote on debates rather than vote for their own teams or friends/relatives.
Two days ago I ran a voting marathon with every name associated with Pride&prejudice; the Jane Austen Novel.
We created about 50 user A/Cs in a matter of minutes typing in fake email A/Cs: firstname.lastname@example.org is clearly not a genuine account. It was an entirely pointless exercise for because unlike my contender(Who I'm going to call Mr.Darcy) I hadn't been making fake A/Cs and voting against me for the entire run of the W.O.D.C to date.
However, while disabling the making of user accounts is counter-intuitive to the purpose of debate-wise. Maybe taking the example of other websites that sending confirmation links to given email addies can ensure that people do not type in fake email Addies to make A/Cs at least?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Eureka: this is the answer; the reason that so many fake accounts can be made on this website; is that you don't even need a genuine email address; anything that looks like an email addy works.
There is no need to log into your email account/s and confirm that that is user account.
The problems this will solve are; we can currently make fake accounts with:
a) Our email -address-book/contact list's email addresses
b) we can use fake email addresses ; anything ending in @email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org (so long as it is too ridiculous to already have been taken like email@example.com) suffices.
The simple answer is to only activate an account through a confirmation link sent to the email address given.
It may be the answer to having fake email adresses but it does not address the core problem with voting, that anyone can do it. Does it really make a difference if someone is creating fake accounts or is simply getting dozens of friends just to create a username to vote on that one debate? It certainly makes no difference to the vote result.
I assume there is a reason why it has not been done already (either difficulty to code or lack of money) as it has always seemed to me to be something obvious that we should have. No one wants fake accounts on debatewise and anyone who gives a fake email account is most likely not going to properly contribute to debates. At worst I would imagine they are more likely to spam, or vandalise the site and at best they will vote once and not come back.
Also I think something that verify's an email address as you put it in (where you get a red light changing to green when registering) would be better than an email confirmation as we dont want to force users to take more steps so reducing the participation.
As an added layer of security debatewise could use captcha confirmation.
I agree that this is a serious problem. Clearly the "Music that glorifies violence against women should be banned" has been rigged. There has been a massive amount of voting for the last 12 hours. The WODC is already tainted.
I dont like captcha's, I keep getting them wrong... but I see the worth.
Detailed vote reports.
The adjudicators, or members of the debatewise team who are overseeing the debates (atm me) should get a detailed report of voting. When each vote is cast, so that they can see any spikes in voting. How many votes for each team, so that it can be compared to previous debates. Who is casting the votes, so that fake accounts can be excluded.
Any kind of technological fix will not work as users will find a way around it. There needs to be a human who can make judgements about suspect votes and s/he needs to have all the relevent data.
The system isn't fair.
I believe given how easy it is to register fake A/C, certain individuals have been abusing the system.
It is unfair to lose because you played the game with honesty and integrity, without resorting to such tricks.
The moderators have to use confirmation e-mails and also captcha codes, to ensure that the system isn't abused.
Limit votes by IP
Yes there is a viable solution.
By limiting the number of times a certain IP address can vote, we can limit the biased votes. One vote from an IP address per two hours would cut down on the spamming of votes, and allows multiple people from the same household/school/workplace to vote.
Both teams are equal
In the WODC the vote only matters if the two professional adjudicators do not agree with each other. This means that the two teams arguments must be pretty equal. At that point if we are going to have any public element at all does it matter if it comes down to getting as many people as you can to vote?
The problem is that someone can simply sit on their PC and register dozens of fake accounts. Why should there be a public element at all. Is this a contest to see who has the best arguments or who has the most time to waste?
What do you think?