Sciforums Voting Age

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by CounslerCoffee, May 29, 2004.

?

Should the voting age be raised?

Poll closed Jun 8, 2004.
  1. Yes, make it 250 posts.

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  2. Yes, make it 500 posts.

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  3. No, leave it at ten (I like my polls tampered with).

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  4. No, I have less than 250 and this thread is a pile of crap.

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  1. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    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.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    How about voting allowed on the basis of what date the user joined. Atleast a one month limit.
     
  8. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    I'm all for that one too. This way we can't have friends sign up and vote; like the recent incidents in SFOG.
     
  9. alain du hast mich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    "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
     
  10. StarOfEight A Man of Taste and Decency Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    684
    If there'd be a way to make it one month or a hundred posts, I think that'd be the best.
     
  11. Shmoo The CzarnaChapka Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    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?
     
  12. alain du hast mich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    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
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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?
     
  14. alain du hast mich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    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
     
  15. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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.
     
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Sounds good to me.
     
  17. Closet Philosopher Off to Laurentian University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,785
    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.
     
  18. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    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?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2004
  19. Closet Philosopher Off to Laurentian University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,785
    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.
     
  20. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    time limit
     
  21. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    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.
     
  22. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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.
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I am not allowed to agree with anyone apparently according to someone in particular, but I agree with these two limits.
     

Share This Page