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

Started May 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Tim A2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,099
Re: Should I be optimistic?

RaptorUK wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

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.

LOL,  DPR have no need to seek my approval,  I'm sure they wouldn't seek to do that.  I'm sure they have several people that could draft what is needed,  they just need the will to do it.

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?

Hosts should be encouraged to set their own Challenge rules against Sandbagging as well as vote solicitation, IMO,  in the absence of all encompassing Challenge rules.

However, the reality is that Hosts can do little to enforce such rules . . . even if they see a voter vote 0.5 on all entries but one there is no guarantee that the Entrant of the one which did not receive the 0.5 vote is the person that placed the votes.

In rare cases a Host may see an Entrant soliciting for votes on their FaceBook page (or similar)  and in this case the entry can be DQed if vote solicitation is not allowed . . .

There is no silver bullet . . .  what is needed is a clip of silver bullets.  In other words,  some joined up thinking and a few joined up measures..

You points are valid, of course, but I still think malicious voting needs to be dealt with now, even though there are no rules against malicious voting.  I believe hosts should report such voting to DPR and DPR should do something about it. If it were up to me I would send the voter in question a PM letting them know their behavior is being observed and that if their malicious voting happens again there will be consequences. If the voter feels their voting was legitimate they can defend themselves.

Tim

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51429297
www.dpreview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-47
209287
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FR4G5J72NZEK7357KUHNFMP5CBN7LFK7
<urn:uuid:f49a1f45-e45b-4e9e-88fe-617e57dfc0da>
2017-11-19T05:13:51Z
52.44.85.210
text/html
sha1:HJSVP22RBB3WDP66VY752NLBTHNHZZBK
<urn:uuid:1a57813d-f1d1-4ca6-87ea-d02508b45781>
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51429297
response
<urn:uuid:a8a75801-81f6-4487-a503-bcfa3a280b42>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-41-215-173.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-47
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf