[POLL] Add tough entry criteria for contests to stop account farmers and cheats?

[stompix]

Do I actually have to explain you why someone who submits 10 pizzas has a higher probability to win compared to someone who submits only one?

Yeah do, walk around me through the math process of this, guess I spent 20 years learning the wrong math.

While you're at do tell me , what's the change in probability:
- me winning in 1 vs 1 race vs Usain Bolt, me and 6 friends running in a 7 vs 1 and beating Usain Bolt
- me submitting a song and topping Taylor Swift in the Billboard and me submitting 1000 songs and having at least one beat her singles

If you would have talked about competitions about price predictions, the goal minute or just picking a random numbers, yeah, that's where it matters, and I'm pretty sure that in the last year cheaters have milked those twice as much in $ than the whole pizza contest today.

So for you participating with multiple accounts, submitting multiple pizzas, and voting for his own pizzas using several alt accounts is "winning fair and square"?

When did the bolded part happen?
I might have missed this and since I don't see any red tag label from you on any of them for this, can you point me to it so I can do the tagging?

[Free Market Capitalist]

So for you participating with multiple accounts, submitting multiple pizzas, and voting for his own pizzas using several alt accounts is "winning fair and square"?

When did the bolded part happen?
I might have missed this and since I don't see any red tag label from you on any of them for this, can you point me to it so I can do the tagging?

You posted on this thread.

How big is the "CryptoYar" account farm?

I haven't checked but didn't they vote for their alts/farm members?

[JollyGood]

fillippone made some suggestions that caught my eye therefore I have updated the poll to add three new options.

Over the past few days I have started to lean towards not having restrictions on newbie accounts entering any contest or competition unless the account was created within 30-50 days of them entering. Also, I see a logic that only a particular rank such as Hero and Legendary should be allowed to vote. This will minimise the overall number of votes but will reduce the possibility of collusion.

If you have any suggestions that could be added to the poll, post them here. I am sure many of you will have different ideas therefore your input is important in this thread.

[stompix]

You posted on this thread.
How big is the "CryptoYar" account farm?
I haven't checked but didn't they vote for their alts/farm members?

Nobody bought the voting thing in that accusation topic, this is why I am asking, the accusation and tags are for multiple accounts entering.
Now that I look in the other topic, one of his alts has voted for his pizza the other did not, 1 vote, he won by 7 votes so unless you find 6 more fraudulent votes the thing is that he would still have won.

And about voting, that is the thing I already mentioned,  as voting is easier to abuse than baking 100 pizzas and hoping one turns into a Michelin dish:

If we talk about voting, yeah, that's a different thing, I actually think we need to select those and have a limited jury, but for the actual participation,  I can't think of a way in which a guy with 10 accounts makes better pizzas than one with just one, solely based on this and not because of his talent.

Also, if you want to further clean up multi-account abuse in that competition, you can do it the way fantasy leagues work, $10 participation fee and the pot goes to the winner.
This will gatekeep more accounts than merit and activity.

[JollyGood]

This is an interesting suggestion. How many account farmers would enter contests and competitions if they had to pay a fee? For example, an account farmer with 10 accounts would not want to pay $10 each and a total of $100 to enter all ten accounts in the knowledge that none of them are guaranteed to win. Now, imagine if the entry fee was $20 

As the number of entrants will definitely fall if an entry fee was mandatory, that is where the sponsorship money will make it worthwhile for genuine entrants. I am adding the option to the poll.

Also, if you want to further clean up multi-account abuse in that competition, you can do it the way fantasy leagues work, $10 participation fee and the pot goes to the winner.
This will gatekeep more accounts than merit and activity.

[Sandra_hakeem]

...

It's this simple. Reply to this question:

Why can't a six days old account participate in the serious boards or in signature campaigns but can win a $1,5K prize for making a fucking pizza?

I have never supported newbie participation in any activity that'd eventually earn them some cash because;
There's a high chance that a newbie who finds an interest in contest few days after their registration (and sometimes not in sig.camp) is an alt that was created for that purpose. Do you know how long it took me to realize that there's a thing like the 'pizza contest', yet I haven't tried it once?

~snip Now, imagine if the entry fee was $20  

As the number of entrants will definitely fall if an entry fee was mandatory, that is where the sponsorship money will make it worthwhile for genuine entrants. I am adding the option to the poll.

Also, if you want to further clean up multi-account abuse in that competition, you can do it the way fantasy leagues work, $10 participation fee and the pot goes to the winner.
This will gatekeep more accounts than merit and activity.

If this paired with the "selected Legendary members acting as juries", we won't have to be discussing about this next time seriously.
"What's the probability of making it to the roster after enrolling 10 alts at $20 each? Even I did, what If it's the 3rd position? So I have to pay 200 bucks for an uncertain pool price". Voted!

[Ale88]

Do I actually have to explain you why someone who submits 10 pizzas has a higher probability to win compared to someone who submits only one?

Yeah do, walk around me through the math process of this, guess I spent 20 years learning the wrong math.

While you're at do tell me , what's the change in probability:
- me winning in 1 vs 1 race vs Usain Bolt, me and 6 friends running in a 7 vs 1 and beating Usain Bolt
- me submitting a song and topping Taylor Swift in the Billboard and me submitting 1000 songs and having at least one beat her singles

Maybe you missed this part:

Of course I'm talking about decent pizzas.

Also, as far as I know, on this forum there is no Usain Bolt of pizzas, we're just regular people, so maybe your example should be you winning a race against another random guy or you + 6 friends running against a random guy. Do you think that guy still has a 50-50 chance in both cases?

Nobody bought the voting thing in that accusation topic, this is why I am asking, the accusation and tags are for multiple accounts entering.
Now that I look in the other topic, one of his alts has voted for his pizza the other did not, 1 vote, he won by 7 votes so unless you find 6 more fraudulent votes the thing is that he would still have won.

Considering all the shady stuff we're seeing coming from the Pakistani board, it could be a matter of time. They planned the votes, it's shown in the other thread.

[stompix]

Also, as far as I know, on this forum there is no Usain Bolt of pizzas, we're just regular people, so maybe your example should be you winning a race against another random guy or you + 6 friends running against a random guy. Do you think that guy still has a 50-50 chance in both cases?

No, there is no chance whatsoever!
The guy which is the fastest will win, so if the cheater brings up 1000 more people but they are all slower than him it won't be doing him any good.
The same stands for you bringing 6 friends who are slower than you the cheater will still win if he is the fastest!

In both cases the fastest one will win no matter how many friends he or whoever else has bought!

Again, you need to face reality, 1 or 2 extra votes but:
- he would still have won
- none of your restrictions would have stopped him from participating, neither merit nor activity

If you want to present a solution start with one that would have stopped him from winning the competition cause right now none would have worked!

Considering all the shady stuff we're seeing coming from the Pakistani board, it could be a matter of time. They planned the votes, it's shown in the other thread.

So you're going to ban a whole board? Then another one?
Then the ones who don't have any kind of participation in local boards because they might be from Pakistan?

I told you a few times already, why don't you open a topic like this addressed directly to theymos and see if he will allow such a competition on his forum?

[Ale88]

Also, as far as I know, on this forum there is no Usain Bolt of pizzas, we're just regular people, so maybe your example should be you winning a race against another random guy or you + 6 friends running against a random guy. Do you think that guy still has a 50-50 chance in both cases?

No, there is no chance whatsoever!
The guy which is the fastest will win, so if the cheater brings up 1000 more people but they are all slower than him it won't be doing him any good.
The same stands for you bringing 6 friends who are slower than you the cheater will still win if he is the fastest!

In both cases the fastest one will win no matter how many friends he or whoever else has bought!

I think you are looking at this example in the opposite way: it's the cheater who brings 6 friends, not the other guy. So maybe the guy was actually faster than the cheater but the cheater's friends are faster than him. Result: the cheater wins anyway.

Again, you need to face reality, 1 or 2 extra votes but:
- he would still have won
- none of your restrictions would have stopped him from participating, neither merit nor activity

As I said, we may find out that other users who voted for him are alts too. All these accounts we're talking about are basically already dead, what does it mean? They are using other accounts of course. And I'm sure CryptoYar has other Hero/Legendary accounts. I don't know the Pakistani board but at this point I can't help but wonder who is actually legit and who is not, because even the 3rd prize winner is began to look kind of shady. So, potentially, we're already talking about at least 5 alts who took home the 1st and 3rd prize. But, as I said, probably they have other accounts too.

If you want to present a solution start with one that would have stopped him from winning the competition cause right now none would have worked!

We are talking about a user, CryptoYar, who joined the forum on January 14, 2020. Over 6 years ago. Legendary status and over 1,000 merits. I don't see what could have prevented what happened. He was not relatively new, he didn't have little merits, etc etc. He screwed up himself because he got too greedy and he wanted to become a MS and also get the prize on the Altcointalk forum too.
I would never risk to lose a 6-year-old Legendary account to bring home today $1,500 but I guess he did his math and, in his case, it was still worth it. Maybe he already has other 3 Legendary accounts, so he doesn't care. In case I'd probably do the same too.

Considering all the shady stuff we're seeing coming from the Pakistani board, it could be a matter of time. They planned the votes, it's shown in the other thread.

So you're going to ban a whole board? Then another one?

Of course mine was a provocative post but what is coming out makes no sense. It looks like the whole section is crooked, just take a look at this:

Basically I am very fond of collecting information about crypto one of my friend told me about this platform she asked me to join this platform so i can get more information and knowledge about crypto market [...]

Looking at and translating your posts, you definitely learned the "local-community-spirit" very quickly. You directly pointed out to your fellow mates several times to vote "the right pizzas"...  

This one is a nice finding as well in general, from one of the known alt-accounts:

BITCOIN PIZZA DAY THERAD
TOTAL VOTE'S CAST'S 50
First Number pa : Pizza No 57: Votes # 23
Second Number pa : Pizza No : 93 Votes # 15
Third Number pa : Pizza No : 2 Votes # 14
Fourth Number pa : Pizza No :24 Votes # 12
Fifth Number pa : Pizza No : 115 Votes # 11
Sixth Number pa : Pizza No : (32,67,82) Votes # 10
Seventh Number pa :Pizza No : 124 Votes # 9
And so on (...........) _____

Bhai ye to muqabla bohat sakhat hota Jaa Raha he. Mujy Lagta he hamari community Kaa Pizza first to nai par Lagta he second yaa third prize ly hi Jaye gi. Lekin agar sari community ki support mily to first bhi AA hi sakty hen. Par uss ky liye mehnat Karni hogi ek ek shaks KO message Karna hoga itni mehnat kon kary. Hahaha.
By the way my NY apna vote cast Kar Diya tha. Or ek zaruri BAAT ap Sab ye zarur Karna ky ek jesy vote NAA dalna last time bhi uss Kaa masla huwa tha or vote count nai huwy thy. Yani apny 2 pizzas to add Karna baaqi apni community ky logon sy alag hi rakhna taa ky phr masla NAA ho.

Translation:

And one important thing: all of you must make sure not to cast identical votes, as that caused an issue last time and the votes weren't counted. Meaning, you should include two of our own pizzas, but keep the rest of your selections different from other community members so we don't run into that problem again.

 

Their votes were basically decided behind closed doors, they chose together who to voted for. The whole board was behind this.

[JollyGood]

The intention was to seek consensus across the forum for a standard set of rules that would limit the impact of account farmers, scammers and cheats when participating in any annual contest/competition that offered a prize to the winners. There could be more but pumpkin and pizza come to mind.

If limiting newbie participation is considered harmful to the community especially when real newbies will feel excluded but account farmers will jump through hoops (based on the post by theymos), then a solution is needed. If restricting an account to participate in any contest/competition based on member rank and account activity seems counterproductive, what are the remaining options?

It is more than possible that somewhere along the line, a real newbie could join the forum after reading about the pumpkin or pizza contest and might want to participate and that could be the sole reason for joining the forum (and there is nothing wrong with that). If newbies are allowed to participate freely then where is the deterrence for those with nefarious intentions?

should there be a strict entry criteria for all competitions/contests that offer prizes to winners?

You're posting this in Meta, so I assume you want this to be a forum-wide rule. Therefore, I voted No. This is the second time today I'm quoting parts of this post:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.
~
Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. ~ When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc.

If only accounts older than 6 months can join, anyone who wants to abuse a contest can create a few accounts and wait 6 months for the next contest. Unless you keep changing the rule: "accounts created after August 2026 can never join a costest" (but that would be ridiculous).

That being said, if this would have been posted on the Reputation board: anyone who creates a campaign is of course free to set whatever requirements they feel are needed.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Their votes were basically decided behind closed doors, they chose together who to voted for. The whole board was behind this.

My opinion is that it's not good to generalize things and say that everyone in a certain local board is bad, but what we can see in the media and especially in many videos on YT is that they have made a real business out of scams in that part of the world. Unfortunately for them, good hackers have appeared and are starting to hack them, and you should see how these scammers react when they realize what happened to them.

Code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JqGuclqng

I have already made a suggestion about the merits limit, and there is another suggestion - why not simply make these competitions without monetary prizes - the prize can be, but does not have to be money. If we can't do without throwing out money as a motivation, then at least before the rewards are paid out, each user should be checked to determine if there is anything suspicious.

[suzanne5223]

I like the idea of this thread, but i still believe all the options presented to prevent/stop the abuse still need more option to stop the cheating in the forum competition. However, I believe the participation of users with good account activity whose ccount bove 24months old with green trust, and who must have received merit from multiple different reputable members, would help to reduce the level of cheating in the forum competition.

[Ale88]

The intention was to seek consensus across the forum for a standard set of rules that would limit the impact of account farmers, scammers and cheats when participating in any annual contest/competition that offered a prize to the winners. There could be more but pumpkin and pizza come to mind.

If limiting newbie participation is considered harmful to the community especially when real newbies will feel excluded but account farmers will jump through hoops (based on the post by theymos), then a solution is needed. If restricting an account to participate in any contest/competition based on member rank and account activity seems counterproductive, what are the remaining options?

It is more than possible that somewhere along the line, a real newbie could join the forum after reading about the pumpkin or pizza contest and might want to participate and that could be the sole reason for joining the forum (and there is nothing wrong with that). If newbies are allowed to participate freely then where is the deterrence for those with nefarious intentions?

I simply think that users should earn their spot in a competition with a monetary prize. I disagree with the idea of "Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community" because we are literally talking about a very specific case related to one thread, two if we consider the Pumpkin Contest too. That's it. Two threads in the whole forum.

Because let's suppose people outside this forum learn about a contest where you make a pizza and you earn money, we could potentially have a bunch of people who register the day before the contest, submit their pizza, win the prize, and then they disappear until the next contest. Would this scenario somehow help the forum? I don't think so. Actually, it would be quite the opposite.

I have already made a suggestion about the merits limit, and there is another suggestion - why not simply make these competitions without monetary prizes - the prize can be, but does not have to be money. If we can't do without throwing out money as a motivation, then at least before the rewards are paid out, each user should be checked to determine if there is anything suspicious.

If the contest grew in popularity during the past years, it's also because of the prize. Some people participate for fun, others for the money, others for both. Removing the prize would probably downsize the whole contest.

[Ale88]

I have another proposal: users from local boards shouldn't be able to vote for pizzas (or pumpkins, or whatever) submitted by users from their own local board. This would prevent users with alt accounts from voting for themselves.

Otherwise, they would have to farm accounts only on the international boards, with no interaction at all with their actual local board. In this way, it'd be much harder for them to rank up because they wouldn't be receiving merits from their "local friends." And, of course, an international user who receives the majority of their merits from users of a particular local board would be highly suspicious.

This simple rule would cut off all the alt accounts that we haven't discovered yet. Of course, the previous suggestions (account age, merits, etc.) would still apply.

[uchegod-21]

I voted that contests should have entry fees because I believe that that is the only thing that can discourage account farmers from involving more of their accounts in the contest. More accounts means more fees. Many of them wouldn't be willing to spend more on something that they are not sure will be successful for them.

Other options in the poll can easily be manipulated. Some farmers may have successfully grown their accounts for more than 6 months, one year and down to very high ranks in the forum. Putting restrictions base on how long they've been in the forum may not solve the problem, fees may do the magic.

[stompix]

We are talking about a user, CryptoYar, who joined the forum on January 14, 2020. Over 6 years ago. Legendary status and over 1,000 merits. I don't see what could have prevented what happened. He was not relatively new, he didn't have little merits, etc etc. He screwed up himself because he got too greedy and he wanted to become a MS and also get the prize on the Altcointalk forum too.

So, this is the issue at hand!
Nothing would stop a legendary from cheating with these restrictions and this is what I'm opposing: half measures.
You either prevent all cheating or you acknowledge defeat and search for a different route.

Banning people on merits and activity is simple a mesaure with which you're saying we can't think of something better.
- put an entry fee gateway, this would prevent multi-accounts from enrolling since they will contribute more with the same risks, and it hits everyone, new or old
- elect a jury, thus no more multiple votes

Banning a board won't help it, if they colluded with votes and they know they can do it they will just offer their "service" to a guy from Russia or France or whatever..how do you stop that?
You cling to the concept of doing something just for the sake of doing it, not calibrating it to be effective, it seems like you suspect everyone of cheating and want to do something about it but you don't realize how they are on top of your game.

I have another proposal: users from local boards shouldn't be able to vote for pizzas (or pumpkins, or whatever) submitted by users from their own local board. This would prevent users with alt accounts from voting for themselves.

Just last week, we had a guy from Pakistan with 300+ merits earned posing as a guy from Nigeria for a year!
You're Italian, right? I can't write a phrase on my own in Italian, although I could probably understand what you're talking about, and I can see from the moon this guy is not Italian at all, so, how many of this kind of guy but way better at what they are doing are lurking in your own locale?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214672.msg66977421#msg66977421

Let me say it again, I am not against filters, but I want filters that actually work!
To me a selected jury would be the only way to stop fraud, the number of entries doesn't matter if a cheater gets 6 pizzas instead of one it will still only be his best pizza that gets votes and he could have submitted just that one anyhow.

[Ale88]

We are talking about a user, CryptoYar, who joined the forum on January 14, 2020. Over 6 years ago. Legendary status and over 1,000 merits. I don't see what could have prevented what happened. He was not relatively new, he didn't have little merits, etc etc. He screwed up himself because he got too greedy and he wanted to become a MS and also get the prize on the Altcointalk forum too.

So, this is the issue at hand!
Nothing would stop a legendary from cheating with these restrictions and this is what I'm opposing: half measures.
You either prevent all cheating or you acknowledge defeat and search for a different route.

I don't see how it's possible to "prevent all cheating", it's like saying we need real life laws that would prevent all crimes. It's impossible. The only thing we can do is  making it harder instead of roll out the red carpet for cheaters because it doesn't make any sense that this contest is open even for the guy who registered 5 minutes before the contest opened and never wrote a single post on the forum.

Banning people on merits and activity is simple a mesaure with which you're saying we can't think of something better.

We are discussing about proposals, aren't we?

- put an entry fee gateway, this would prevent multi-accounts from enrolling since they will contribute more with the same risks, and it hits everyone, new or old
- elect a jury, thus no more multiple votes

I'm totally down for these proposals too. As long as we do something, because it's clear that something must change, I'm totally fine.

Banning a board won't help it, if they colluded with votes and they know they can do it they will just offer their "service" to a guy from Russia or France or whatever..how do you stop that?
You cling to the concept of doing something just for the sake of doing it, not calibrating it to be effective, it seems like you suspect everyone of cheating and want to do something about it but you don't realize how they are on top of your game.

Based on my calculations, during the 2026 Pizza Day Contest we had a total of 128 users whose votes were accepted and considered valid. Out of those 128, we had 32 Pakistani users. That means 25% of the Pizza Day Contest came from the same local board. Not 10%, not 15%, but 25%. 1 out of 4 was a Pakistani user voting. Now we know their game, we know their can't be trusted (just look up the story CryptoYar made up about the sick daughter in the hospital...) so every single vote coming from a Pakistani user will be highly scrutinized.

And in the remote case we actually have a Russian or French user (for example) whose pizza was voted by 30+ Pakistani users there will be more investigation before sending out the prize. And they would also have to find a user willing to potentially lose his account in case we find out what happened. I don't know about you, but I would never jeopardize my account for $1,500 (even less since I'd have to pay them the commission for the votes).

They cheated in the Pizza Contests and in the Pumpkin Contest too, at this point any action coming from a Pakistani user must be scrutinized, even a simple vote, this is where we are now.

I have another proposal: users from local boards shouldn't be able to vote for pizzas (or pumpkins, or whatever) submitted by users from their own local board. This would prevent users with alt accounts from voting for themselves.

Just last week, we had a guy from Pakistan with 300+ merits earned posing as a guy from Nigeria for a year!

Could you please link me something about this case? I'm curious, thanks!

You're Italian, right? I can't write a phrase on my own in Italian, although I could probably understand what you're talking about, and I can see from the moon this guy is not Italian at all, so, how many of this kind of guy but way better at what they are doing are lurking in your own locale?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214672.msg66977421#msg66977421

From time to time we have random low-rank users posting in the board, in the majority of cases they get ignored because it's clear they are using a translator, and then they disappear.
Not sure what their goal is (to earn merits with a random post?) but, for example, in the past I wrote a few posts in the Spanish board because I speak Spanish, and I simply did it because I was interested in a certain topic, not because I was trying to pretend I was Spanish or because I was looking for merits.

Let me say it again, I am not against filters, but I want filters that actually work!
To me a selected jury would be the only way to stop fraud, the number of entries doesn't matter if a cheater gets 6 pizzas instead of one it will still only be his best pizza that gets votes and he could have submitted just that one anyhow.

As I said before, I'm down for any kind of rule that would make their lives harder, whether it's merits, account age, a fee, a jury, you name it.

[stompix]

!Just last week, we had a guy from Pakistan with 300+ merits earned posing as a guy from Nigeria for a year!

Could you please link me something about this case? I'm curious, thanks!

This guy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591212.0
The disadvantages of being in a 3rd world country: I could skim tommorow all the chain stores here and get products placing me in Poland or France,  but this is what he got itself into when greed overpowered means.


As I said before and reading back your reply, my proposal would be gatekeeping the voting, not the participation, I'm judging this from my own perspective. If I baked 6 pizzas tomorrow, it wouldn't help me at all as I would get 1-2 votes each, but if I were to cheat and ask a professional to bake one...why would I even make the other 5 for?

[IjawMan]

I voted that contests should have entry fees because I believe that that is the only thing that can discourage account farmers from involving more of their accounts in the contest. More accounts means more fees. Many of them wouldn't be willing to spend more on something that they are not sure will be successful for them.

Other options in the poll can easily be manipulated. Some farmers may have successfully grown their accounts for more than 6 months, one year and down to very high ranks in the forum. Putting restrictions base on how long they've been in the forum may not solve the problem, fees may do the magic.

The money prize reward is what is bringing cheaters into the forum contests and now you are bringing another money idea of money for entry fee. Did you know that cheaters can still manipulate Thier way into the contest equally with an entry fees introduction in any of the contents.

A cheater can plan ahead and save up in time for the date of the contest, like the pizza contest that I saw how enticing the prizes are. The same way they creates alts months in preparation a contest that is how they can plan ahead for the fees.

My opinion is let entry be open to newbies to the highest ranks but let voting be restricted to hero and legendary ranks.