Bitcointalk++ script - Thoughts about votes

[jackjack]

Looks like people don't agree on this matter

Before you vote, please keep in mind that:

• You can't choose which account you "trust" like in theymos' trust system: everybody see the sum of all votes from everybody. (for now, it may change if there's enough demand)
• Drawback of "All": people you rated -1 could rate you -1 too
• Drawback of "None": I am the only one to have access to the votes and could manipulate them
• I'll "ban" (not sure how yet) people abusing the system (like voting -1 for everybody) whatever the result is

Comment/explain/etc as much as you want in this thread
Full disclosure: I voted "Hidden"

Note that I don't state I will implement the chosen behaviour, it's just to know what people would prefer

[infested999]

Does in any way mean that people can look up what other people have voted? For example will there ever be a list of people who gave "jackjack" a +1?

[jackjack]

Here are examples of what you will have access to depending on what option I'll apply
Hope this will answer your question


All

satoshi +1
infested999 -1
...

theymos +1
BadBear -1
...

sirius +1
Atlas -1
...

MPOE-PR +1
John -1
...

Related to you

sirius +1
Atlas -1
...

MPOE-PR +1
John -1
...

None

MPOE-PR +1
John -1
...

Hidden

theymos +1
you +1
BadBear -1
...

greyhawk+1
tysat -1
you -1
...

c3f8ef7053c4fb306f7476e7d1956f0aa992ff9dfdd5244b912a1d377ff3a84f +1
4cc250c23c885cdfd10603bfde782534be29a4e474829234b69929526138fc26 -1
...

0713a376c0815ead1d6ef38bb567b4b224fc549fc1ddf83093daecc0fd048ba7 +1
dfd9ea718bd07cf3559f0ecb7bd8cdcd7aa3fc2aa41f805adbd785fbeebcf1a0 -1
...

MPOE-PR +1
John -1
...

[narayan]

Wow so you violate the privacy of those who use your script by posting their votes to demonstrate?

[jackjack]

Here are examples of what you will have access to depending on what option I'll apply

How could I even publish lists about "you" (as in "People who voted for you" and "Votes from you") anyway? Do you think my post is modified depending on the person who is viewing my post?

I'll be clearer though as it looks like it's necessary: those lists are fake, they are examples

[favdesu]

I prefer the "Hidden" option.  It can be seen from the comments in the trust system that when someone gets negative feedback they often give back negative feedback.  The private option would stop the tit-for-tat of -1 votes.

Another option could be to publicly show the votes from each of the member groups.  This way no one can tell who voted for whom and it would help stop people gaming the system using socks.  For example, the following distribution would look a little suspicious:

member123 [+5]
Brand New:   [+10, -0]
Newbie:   [+0, -0]
Jr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Member:   [+0, -0]
Full Member:   [+0, -0]
Sr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Hero Member:   [+0, -5]

+1 I vote for this

[whiskers75]

Division/exclusion by group is good.
Maybe weight +/-1's on rank, so someone can't register a ton of accounts to defraud a user.

(I'd just like to know who's -1'ing me.)

[jackjack]

I prefer the "Hidden" option.  It can be seen from the comments in the trust system that when someone gets negative feedback they often give back negative feedback.  The private option would stop the tit-for-tat of -1 votes.

Another option could be to publicly show the votes from each of the member groups.  This way no one can tell who voted for whom and it would help stop people gaming the system using socks.  For example, the following distribution would look a little suspicious:

member123 [+5]
Brand New:   [+10, -0]
Newbie:   [+0, -0]
Jr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Member:   [+0, -0]
Full Member:   [+0, -0]
Sr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Hero Member:   [+0, -5]

I will do this. Not sure how yet but it's definitely something worth implementing.
It's not critical for now as I manually send passwords to people asking for them.

[BadBear]

I prefer the "Hidden" option.  It can be seen from the comments in the trust system that when someone gets negative feedback they often give back negative feedback.  The private option would stop the tit-for-tat of -1 votes.

Another option could be to publicly show the votes from each of the member groups.  This way no one can tell who voted for whom and it would help stop people gaming the system using socks.  For example, the following distribution would look a little suspicious:

member123 [+5]
Brand New:   [+10, -0]
Newbie:   [+0, -0]
Jr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Member:   [+0, -0]
Full Member:   [+0, -0]
Sr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Hero Member:   [+0, -5]

I will do this. Not sure how yet but it's definitely something worth implementing.
It's not critical for now as I manually send passwords to people asking for them.

I like this idea the best, opening it will just mean more drama and fake votes from retaliation (disclosure, haven't used it yet).

[whiskers75]

I prefer the "Hidden" option.  It can be seen from the comments in the trust system that when someone gets negative feedback they often give back negative feedback.  The private option would stop the tit-for-tat of -1 votes.

Another option could be to publicly show the votes from each of the member groups.  This way no one can tell who voted for whom and it would help stop people gaming the system using socks.  For example, the following distribution would look a little suspicious:

member123 [+5]
Brand New:   [+10, -0]
Newbie:   [+0, -0]
Jr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Member:   [+0, -0]
Full Member:   [+0, -0]
Sr. Member:   [+0, -0]
Hero Member:   [+0, -5]

I will do this. Not sure how yet but it's definitely something worth implementing.
It's not critical for now as I manually send passwords to people asking for them.

I like this idea the best, opening it will just mean more drama and fake votes from retaliation (disclosure, haven't used it yet).

Add the option to hide votes from one group/user

[jackjack]

I like this idea the best, opening it will just mean more drama and fake votes from retaliation (disclosure, haven't used it yet).

I'll wait for more votes but I think I'll chose this option

Add the option to hide votes from one group/user

I don't understand what you mean

[whiskers75]

If a lot of newbies are spam-voting one person, I should be able to set in preferences "Ignore votes from group: Newbies" or something of the sort.

[jackjack]

Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure I want newbies being able to vote at all

[favdesu]

Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure I want newbies being able to vote at all

+1 - just let them watch but not vote.

[jackjack]

Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure I want newbies being able to vote at all

+1 - just let them watch but not vote.

I'll put a minimum activity to vote. Say.... 85

[favdesu]

Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure I want newbies being able to vote at all

+1 - just let them watch but not vote.

I'll put a minimum activity to vote. Say.... 85

I DARE YOU

[jackjack]

Actually I think 84 is the right lower limit.
It requires an account to be 2.5 months old and to post 84 posts. I think it's enough to have a bit of legitimity. I'll add a whitelist anyway.

Thoughts?

[favdesu]

Actually I think 84 is the right lower limit.
It requires an account to be 2.5 months old and to post 84 posts. I think it's enough to have a bit of legitimity. I'll add a whitelist anyway.

Thoughts?

I'd say something around 50 (1 month) should be fine too

[jackjack]

Actually I think 84 is the right lower limit.
It requires an account to be 2.5 months old and to post 84 posts. I think it's enough to have a bit of legitimity. I'll add a whitelist anyway.

Thoughts?

I'd say something around 50 (1 month) should be fine too

I prefer having a high limit and a big whitelist than a low limit and a big blacklist
For now it's not critical but I fear what will happen when I'll automate registrations

[jackjack]

Vote locked
The 'Hidden' option won
Here are the lists: http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/voteslist.php