Intersite DG: Apolyton's Reputation ....

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by vondrack
OK, I have read through this whole thread and it looks interesting. It seems to me that most people intend to run for executive positions, which might result in a somewhat low numbers of ordinary citizens...

My impression was entirely the opposite... it seems like everyone is saying they'll be a citizen, but they don't have time for executive office

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
The problem I have is that your system determines somebody's honesty by looking at their post count.

What you are implying is that somebody with more than 1000 posts can be trusted not to cheat, but somebody with less than 1000 needs is less honest and needs to go through an approval process. (/edit: I realise that you are a Prince yourself, and so didn't actually mean to discriminate like this, but this is nevertheless the effect of the system.)

It'd be much fairer to have either:
a) no approval process whatsoever - this has a big risk of being exploited by cheaters.
b) an approval process for everybody, regardless of post count - obviously one person (Markos? Betahound? I dunno...) needs to pick the first person to be approved and we can go from there.

I like(most) of your ideas.
A) this isn't high risk, its insane. All it would take would be one person to join as a spy and our team will be compromised. People will cheat (not everyone, but someone would).
b) This was actually my first idea. Have Markos be the man to do the authorizing to start with. Say, have him pick the first twenty or so. Then he gives the authorizing power to one of the 20 (say Betahound for instance) and the twenty in the team already could vote, or sponsor, other people. As people come in, they get to vote/sponsor people.

I put forth the King sugestion as just some arbitrary number. You are completely correct in that this number does not reflect weather someone is either trustworthy or an Apolytonian, but it is a start. As an example, I know in my heart that I am an Apolytonian, but there is no way I could prove it to anyone who didn't know me.

[Beta]

Great debate. I like the vouching idea. I agree - you know in your heart where you stand - but I would also suggest that a handful, or probably many more, of your colleagues here at Apolyton could and would vouch for where your heart stands as well. I know my Vox team-mates pretty well, and could vouch for them and vice-versa (hopefully). (you would guys, wouldn't you.... )

The approach still has flaws, and someone who has been around for awhile could still be dis-honest, but it is probably the best measure available. (outside of the obvious and limited technical ones - e-mail, etc).

It will stack the odds against a relatively new member - HarryH above being a case in point.

So, what about the idea of Markos picking a group that he knows and trusts (say 10-20 of those who signed on) and they being the ones to vouch for the others. Note that all past thread squabbles will need to be put aside for this. That is not the question on the table.

There would also need to be a policy and decision process for new members once the game is underway.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by donegeal

A) this isn't high risk, its insane. All it would take would be one person to join as a spy and our team will be compromised. People will cheat (not everyone, but someone would).

I'm well aware of that.

My two options were rhetorical. I honestly see those as being the only two ways to organise the system to make it as fair as possible to the most number of people. The fact that the first option is completely impractical only serves to promote the second option.



I agree that 'being an apolytoner' is a rather nebulous concept - and post count is a good place to start in determining this. I feel that 1000 is rather too high however, but that's not what is important. As long as many other factors in addition to post count and join date are taken into consideration when it comes to 'inexperienced' members we haven't all heard of then I'm fine with it.

Our experiences of setting up the PTW demogame will be useful to us, I'm sure.

[kentonio]

Hi guys, got a suggestion which may make the whole spying thing a little easier to control, one of my fellow CDG admins, Omnimower, has suggested we cooperate between the sites to share ip info on players so any double logins on different sites could be identified. This would help immeasurably of course to see if anyone was indeed spying on other teams.

If we do this then for privacy and security reasons the info would have to be shared SOLELY with say the site admin or similar as we cannot of course divulge this info to regular users. If this would be of interest then please let me know and we'll take it to the UN to see if the other sites would also like to join this scheme.

Kentonio

[asleepathewheel]

Wouldn't it be easier to have the site admins or high ranking mods compare the ip addresses of the players? I know that Mark and Thunderfall are honorable and wouldn't allow such foolishness.

[Togas]

How's this thing progressing? Any updates on when we might start? We're going to need to organize prior to the start, get the team settled, get our structure worked out, and get our early leadership in place.

I agree with Arnelos, I don't think we're going to see a lot of us running for Executive Positions early because many of us are busy with other responsibilities, so I'm curious to see who is interested in leading APOLYTON in this great contest?

Who amongst us will be our first Great Leader?

--Togas

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Wouldn't it be easier to have the site admins or high ranking mods compare the ip addresses of the players? I know that Mark and Thunderfall are honorable and wouldn't allow such foolishness.

Unfortunately, some providers change IPs regularly in order to combat system abuse, so that won't work.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by dejon


Unfortunately, some providers change IPs regularly in order to combat system abuse, so that won't work.

I see. But if you look at the IPs when everyone starts, wouldn't they be the same (or quite similar) for someone using both sites? And if someone wants to join after that, just compare their ip address to those used currently on the other site. What I'm saying is, that if they want to be a spy, they would have to report their findings, which would mean that they would have to log in around the same time on each site.

How often would they switch, anyway?

[kentonio]

That was the point we were making, it can only help to combat abuse even if it isnt a perfect solution. Will need to hear from your admin though if he wants to do this as we cant release ip details publicly of course.

kentonio

[Panag]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I see. But if you look at the IPs when everyone starts, wouldn't they be the same (or quite similar) for someone using both sites? And if someone wants to join after that, just compare their ip address to those used currently on the other site. What I'm saying is, that if they want to be a spy, they would have to report their findings, which would mean that they would have to log in around the same time on each site.

How often would they switch, anyway?

hi ,

and what to do with dynamic ip , ...

have a nice day

[Conqueror]

This will most likely be an interesting PBEM game, count me in too.

With the reservation that if paranoia will strike badly and us low post count people will not see the actual game, then i ofcourse will not join.

There would be no point in being a part of a PBEM game if you cant see the actual events

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Conqueror
This will most likely be an interesting PBEM game, count me in too.

With the reservation that if paranoia will strike badly and us low post count people will not see the actual game, then i ofcourse will not join.

There would be no point in being a part of a PBEM game if you cant see the actual events

If people prince or lower can't play due to their newness to the forum or their relative lack of posting, it will make the game less enjoyable.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I see. But if you look at the IPs when everyone starts, wouldn't they be the same (or quite similar) for someone using both sites? And if someone wants to join after that, just compare their ip address to those used currently on the other site. What I'm saying is, that if they want to be a spy, they would have to report their findings, which would mean that they would have to log in around the same time on each site.

How often would they switch, anyway?

My IP changes every time I reboot my router. I do that on occassion because for some reason my connection speed slows down over time if I don't reboot the router (I highly suspect this has to do with Verizon....)

It's also a nice security feature, especially when coupled with my firewall.

[HarryH]

Originally posted by BetaHound:
It will stack the odds against a relatively new member - HarryH above being a case in point.

Go ahead, pick on me. See if I care.
I guess it depends on how you define new. I joined Apolyton before you did. I just have not been active in posting.

It's too bad there are some people that feel they need to cheat and spoil it for everyone else when it is just a game. I had enough of that in my old FidoNet days.

We have no security gates with identity checks. Any method that could be used will have its flaws. You might get lucky but anyone who is serious about cheating will find a way.

IP/email address checks - Might get lucky and catch someone. Sort of like those dumb criminal spots I hear on the radio. These checks would be so easy to get around.

Post count - Back in my FidoNet days there were some people who posted a lot. I guess it made them feel like an expert or something. Lots of posts didn't necessarily make them reputable though. Over time though you learned the good from the bad. If post count will be a major factor I could crank it up real quick.

Approval/recommendations - Probably your best bet. It's usually your gut that tells you whether or not to trust someone. This will leave out new people who are not known. Someone (or group) will have to make the decision and there are bound to be some people (on either side) who will not be happy with every decision.