In order to cut down on fraudulent votes, I believe that the voting age should be raised from 10 posts, to 250 or even 500. Any thoughts?

And yes, I realize that this measure will not pass because everyone under 250 post (i.e. people who show up and assume that they know everything about this place) will vote no.

Damnit, I didn't make the votes visible. Oh well, let's see how this goes.

Some long time members here don't even have 500 posts where as some post whores who have been here for a fraction of the time (me) have more than needed.

I think 100 posts would probably be fine. Or maybe even 50. I doubt if there are many long-standing members with less than 100 or 50 and it would take some time for a new poster to reach it, during which, he gains knowledge of site dynamics.

How about voting allowed on the basis of what date the user joined. Atleast a one month limit.

How about voting allowed on the basis of what date the user joined. Atleast a one month limit.

I'm all for that one too. This way we can't have friends sign up and vote; like the recent incidents in SFOG.

"How about voting allowed on the basis of what date the user joined. Atleast a one month limit."

that would really annoy some heavy internet users who do know alot about the net, but only joined this particular forum a short time ago, im for changing it to 50 or 100 posts

If there'd be a way to make it one month or a hundred posts, I think that'd be the best.

I'm all for the time limit, I'm not sure what point alain is trying to make. What does it matter if new users are particularly savvy with the internet?

if you had been on the internet since it was created, you wouldnt want some stupid guy who'd only been on it for a month be able to vote and you couldn't.

star of eight has a good point with the month or 100 posts

Voting isn't necessarily about how long you've been on the internet. Maybe if it was a site mechanics issue, maybe not even then. When a ban poll is being decided, what does the amount of time you've spent on the internet as a whole have to do with anything? Does that make you somehow understand the social dynamics going on in this particular forum?

I'd agree on some mechanics issues. It would have to be decided on a case by case basis whether the poll is based on a general enough issue that general knowledge can let you vote responsibly.

edit: reading your last post, I forgot the original intent of your idea. A poster with low post count but has been a member for a long time should be able to vote. But, realistically if you prowled around enough to understand what is up for vote, why wouldn't you post?

and deciding on a case by case basis would take too much effort

"if you prowled around enough to understand what is up for vote, why wouldn't you post?"

good point, but im sure there are people below 100 posts who know whats going on

but making it 250 posts is stupid, you can know whats going on before that

250 is the voting age on other forums, I'm just using it as an over-all general idea. I like the 100 posts idea...

I say it should be 100 posts or one month, whichever comes first. That way, if you aren't a heavy poster, then you can still vote if you've been here for a month.

Sounds good to me.

I think it should be a combination of how long your ID has been registered and how many posts you have.

I think 10 days and 150 posts is accurate. I only really started understanding the complicated social web on this forum after about 150 posts and got to know the whos-who.

I like the idea of CC, at least one month or 100 posts. Sounds allright to me. I have seen members who were around a year or more and they did not have a hundred posts. So for them the 1 month would apply. Me on the other hand, I think I had a hundred posts well before one month passed.
Perhaps only the time limit would be appropriate?
But I would say either one has to be around for more than a month or he needs at least a hundred posts, perhaps a higher number would be better. Perhaps 200?

I think we all agree that there needs to be a higher limit, to control votes. I think that is the important point. Porf can decide how many and how long the people need.

time limit

I think a time limit is definitely needful. Just look at the Ban PM thread and those two guys who just joined a few hours ago and started some kind of inverted PM behaviour/propaganda. Just look at it yourself.

Dreamwalker, I am looking at it. And I am cleaning it up as we speak. This is only one more reason for there to be a higher post count/time limit.

I say it should be 100 posts or one month, whichever comes first. That way, if you aren't a heavy poster, then you can still vote if you've been here for a month.

I am not allowed to agree with anyone apparently according to someone in particular, but I agree with these two limits.

I think StarOfEight and CC have it right. Any kind of either/or would allow a limit on how many bogus accounts can be set up for voting, and passers-by from screwing with a serious issue just for enterainment.

Either that, or does Porf have some way of only allowing one vote per IP address?

Probably should specify the time limit as 30 days before the poll opens. Just to be precise about it.

Silverback, restricting it by IP would take care of the problem of shitheads with too much time on their hands who register repeatedly, but it'd still leave the polls open to shitheads with too much time on their hands who get their fellow shitheads to register here.

"Probably should specify the time limit as 30 days before the poll opens. Just to be precise about it." i dunno, what if a poll is open for ages, and someone learns what the poll is about by reading everyone elses posts, then they shud be able to vote

"restricting it by IP would take care of the problem of shitheads with too much time on their hands who register repeatedly, but it'd still leave the polls open to shitheads with too much time on their hands who get their fellow shitheads to register here."
then couldnt we do both? one vote per IP address and the 1 month or 100 post min as well

Thanks, StarOfEight. I am all in favor of Shithead reduction by any and all means possible. It seems that IP address would eliminate the problem at hand (those listed by CC as sharing a single IP) and the 30 day, 100 post limit would cut down on "calling in friends" if that really is a problem at all.

How long does a banning poll (or other poll) stay open for anyhow? Should the time limit be designed to always be longer than the poll to keep out the "calling in friends" when a poll like that is opened? ie: If bannings are always 30 day polls, shouldn't the time limit be 31 days to prevent people on either side from pulling in outsiders?

50 posts or a month, IP restrictions can have a bad effect of blocking people with the same external IP, increase post count if the problem persist.

edit: i would prefere no limits, perhaps limit ban threads to the site owner, instant 3 day ban for ANY other person that creates a ban thread.

a time limit would be fair. Say a month?

Just a time limit would probably not work, since the cautious troll would probably make some accounts in advance.

"perhaps limit ban threads to the site owner"
isnt the point of ban threads so that porfiry can find out who is not wanted at sciforums with less effort?

Ban threads get out of hand to easy, im amazed it took this long. Porfiry & co or only Porfiry could make ban thread based on how often a user had his posts reported.

i dont like limits, if the sciforum populus cannot handle ban threads, we might as well loose that option

"perhaps limit ban threads to the site owner"
isnt the point of ban threads so that porfiry can find out who is not wanted at sciforums with less effort?

Besides which, Porfiry retains veto power over any ban poll.

Fair comment spurious .Do trolls actully do that?? sad twats! . I know i`m fairly new here , and don`t have that many posts (yet) but we all have to start somwhere.250 posts is still a while away for me so i have`nt voted on this poll ,and don`t fancy the other options.

Dont worry slotty at your current rate it will only take you 452 days before you have 250 posts :)

lol. thanks for that . and i reckoned juggling soot and nailing jelly to a wall was soul destroying! :eek:

Hei slotty!

give me your password for a few days and I will fill up your post count until it starts to look decent.

hang on , a one legged man trying to kick a football up a down escalater -thats soul destroying .but i did laugh at the guy trying :D

i was in the same situation once slotty, but i didnt laugh at him, i was too busy trying to remove a leg from my chainsaw

yes give us your pwd slotty, we only want to help.

anyway, limits will not keep the morons at bay, unless it gets set high, so high that it will hamper the regular users

thanks for the offers of help, but i`ll have to decline,i think some posters would abuse it :D

not us...we are nice!

cough cough...


aren't we Kunax?

ofcause we are, no question about it

Actually, I think 50 posts or >20 and two weeks. But it might be hard to administer and keep track of that way. So I'd say 50 posts is a good number.

What about those people who do not post a lot but read a lot? 10 is a good number for me.

Guess ... that's why I said, "One month or a hundred posts."

Can I give you the perspective of a guy who han't been around long but who has shot his mouth off a fair bit?

I don't care. And I doubt if many new members care.

A hundred posts? I could do that standing on my head. (And some of them even make sense.)

Yeah, some people seem to rise fast.

One month or 100 posts are appropriate.
At least that keeps most people from creating new
members to sway polls.

I could do that standing on my head

Sopranos references own.

I think that there are already sleepers in place in case the one month carries. There's a few people who joined at the time of the PM debacle that have posted to 10 posts and now are nonactive. I bet they'll pop back up as soon as another ban thread appears. If PM ever reappears anyway.

I kinda think he is back among us as a different name. Trying to be a bit cooler. I think that at least one of the new anti-Muslim posters was PM trying to see if we would treat them as bad as we did him. I also think a certain mod was in on it. I hope he learned that it isn't all about hating Islam that caused the stress. I could be wrong about the whole thing though. Just something I've deduced from this and that.

well, if PM comes back to us and is a rational member, ill be more then willing to not try to find out that he is PM, but maybe we should check the IP's of some of the radical Muslim supporters to see if they match PM's, just incase

yes!

*the relentless march of facism and its hideous practitioners continues.
*the assault on freedom and the democratic impulse intensifies to obscene levels
*the disenfranchisement of the n00b has begun

hathor, we arent trying to stop noobs voting
we are trying to stop them voting without thinking, and more importantly, we are trying to stop people creating multiple accounts