posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 03:48 AM
Elsewhere I posted about the potential for what dragonrider has subsequently called 'vote spamming'.
In the Colonel vs goregrinder debate, dragonrider has indicated he saw the tally being manipulated.
I am pleased to hear it - not about someone's questionable ethics, but the fact that this is all in the realm of potential is now being examined.
Much as it takes away from people's freedom to make judgment calls in a secret ballot, it may be necessary for a while to do the voting another way,
in all the things, not just the debates, if anything here that serves to gratify people's sense of accomplishment or self worth is so easily
manipulated.
I can only thing of:
(1) controlled admin/staff votes on the same criteria as the old system (ie equitable assessment of the quality of arguments, or whatever else is
being measured)
or
(2) members cast their votes openly in a post, and then make any elaborating remarks.
The second case doesn't make voting secret, but stiff - it means people either cast their vote for all to see and say nothing, or they make some
comments that might help improve one or other of the participants.
Yeah, I think if 'vote tampering' has taken place, the person or people should be banned with no impeachment hearings.
Same as if it ever happened in, say, US elections in 2000 or 2004.