user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Are we talking about Kiki? Probably not, although the good ship Maintainer should make her walk the plank too.
So here is the truth. Some comments blocked were duplicates and not all were done by the same user. So cranky... is it wrong for maintainers to block (or censor in your words) these?
ur hot show me ur boobs
You suck
^Shut the fuck up BBC. Only you could turn this into a racist issue.
motherf*cker wwrinkley ass balls u stupid c*nt
i hate pakis sooo much because they have no respect for our country i want them all to drop dead!! im not joking
sadgasg
A multi line post that begins with "TS FUNNY HOW PEOPLE BE F*CKEN TALKING SHIT ON DA MEXICANS" and continues on with more of the same.
I love it when a girl farts from her ass
k
thiz website sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and a few more:
Hell Yea hate the F*ckers
(the infamous) Hi (comment)
nH Mn it INT RONG KILL THSE MOTHERFCUA
if u f*kin hate us ssssooo much den stop eatiin
various website spamming posts
vicious attacks on specific users
The utterly vulgar comment in my first post was repeated in another.
I don't know who all the maintainers are who have blocked comments but LCD can tell you who they are. I'll stand by my blocked comments. If there are any of them that are questionable, it is because a user I have blocked from my ballots is trying to post as a "guest". Example: Lovelynice.
I have no problem with any of the guest comments maintainers have blocked. So stop your smearing campaign Jimmy cranky Carter and take some medicine for your obsessive-compulsive disorder and your rampant PMS.
Voted : No
See cranky bitches about one single comment. He may approve guest comments he knows are from registered users, but I don't. I'll block them on my own and others if it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. In the one item he mentions, it is obvious that the "guest" is a registered user and is almost certainly a "guest" comment that he himself made.
BTW, cranky. The guest who made the comment is a banned user. They later made another guest comment to point out that the comment wasn't directed at me but m123.
Fiddle:
Since this ballot is a pathetic attempt to smear me, I'm assuming you won't mind if I respond. I will have to post as a guest user since you have me blocked from your ballots.
Firstly, I'm not obsessed with you and neither is BBC. I was simply making a ballot, ballot #115530, to counter your hysterical ballot in which you howled that another maintainer deleted the pro-Israel ballot choice you were compulsively vote spamming. It wasn't me, btw, I don't have the ability to delete choices.
As for the guest comment you blocked:
""Stop complaining. You keep spamming the votes on those ballots. How right is that? Its not at all right. You skew the results to get the outcome you want FFOLSD so you're just as bad as the person who deleted it. You know you do that so maybe your not in the position to complain?"
It just seems hypocritical to me that you are banning guest user comments just because they are critical of you.
Also, you originally accused me of putting up that guest user comment, which is untrue. I don't need anonymity to tell you that you are acting like a jerk. And then, you claim that banned user hirman put it up, which isn't right, either.
And as for providing no proof: I said that 28 of the last 50 guest user comments were censored by you. How more proof is needed?
It just seems hypocritical to me that someone who is always preaching to everyone on B&W how bad censorship is, is actually B&W's biggest censor.
Cranky
Much ado about little is my read. You should remember that when you respond to someone, you are feeding the situation. Attention is the lifeblood of argument. Quit paying attention and it almost always goes away.
Lets me go point by point cranky.
1, I did not "censor" 28 of the last 50 comments. I wiped inappropriate ones as did others. That is a big difference. Also, I rarely allow guest user comments on my ballots and certainly not if they are coming from a user I have blocked. There are several comments listed that look like they might be legit. However, I don't know the ballot they were wiped from or if they are duplicates. I do not know why they are wiped. It wasn't me who did so.
OK? Lets be clear about this.
2. I did not "howl" about a ballot choice being deleted. I pointed it out. Either a maintainer with the ability to wipe the choice did this or a group of people rated the choice out of existence. I have seen this happen before on popular ballots. One of the most prominent is with a ballot _beelzebub made questioning the Holocaust. The choice that stated it did happen, etc was suddenly wiped. I noticed this as I had been responding to the ignorant rantings of lovelynice and her aliases.
3. I saw the "Is the Israeli wall justifiable" ballot on the main page. Out of curiosity, I went to look at the results. The "yes" choice was gone.
4. Having seen a pattern of this happening on ballots where apparently someone doesn't like the results so they delete a choice, I felt I had to comment on this.
5. You and others have made a number of ballots that I don't agree with. The results aren't what I want them to be either. However, even if I had the ability to do so, I would not wipe the choice I don't like. I also would not rate it out of existence.
6. I have obviously gotten confused on the ballot comments I wiped. One was from hirman. I don't know about the other. My bad.
7. I never approve guest user comments attacking the ballot maker or vicious personal attacks that are obviously made by a registered user. I almost always wipe these as they are a pathetic and cowardly way of attacking another user. This situation rarely occurs to me specifically but often with other users. What I did is no different this time. The guest comment was obviously from a registered user. They should either post it under their ID or approve it themselves (as you did here).
I will make these points again:
1. Is it wrong for someone to wipe or delete legitimate, original, non-racist, etc ballot choices?
2. Isn't there a difference between wiping the crap I have posted above and censorship? If there isn't then by all means approve all of the stuff that I and other maintainers wipe all of the time because in your words it is "censorship".
Lastly... If you or anyone creates a legitimate ballot with legitimate choices or adds legitimate choices and these get wiped or deleted, I will protest that too. Its wrong to do that whether I agree with the results or not. Don't you agree?
This is where maybe the miscommunication is. I don't care what the results are. Someone shouldn't be deleting good ballot choices. Apparently, someone or some people get upset over the results. The website is supposed to be fun. Its not a scientific polling site.
Well, vote spamming destroys the legitimacy of a ballot. If a user or a group of users are repeatedly voting on the same choice, in effect they are doing what was said...driving up their choice (and that does not mean they made the choice, but it is the choice they want to "win.). That in effect is vote rigging and it is not supposed to happen. But... it does and is happening, all to frequently.
Basically, certain people are angry because the choice they want to win was wiped...even though the choice was very clearly vote spammed.
It seems clear that this is a case of which bad deed do you like least: the vote spamming or the cleansing of a ballot by removing the bogus results? Both are inheriently wrong, but one action is often necessary. But if you're happy with the way the results are going, you will decry the cleansing as bad, even though the result is clearly riggged.
On that note, I will ask this question: for those complaining, why is that in the past, you have approached me and asked me to delete comments and choices made by others, simply because YOU did not like them? Consider that please. And no...I'm not saying who, I'm just saying "you" in that you can guess all you want, but I won't name the person.
Let's keep this in perspective here and bear in mind that some people are intentionally vote spamming and that is just wrong.
Voted : No
I've moderated a few sites before, and this is the only one i've seen where the moderators or "maintainers" publicly argue. When old members bash eachother it scares new members away, they feel they don't belong because they are "missing" something or they run away out of fear of getting involved in a nightmare. We want a fun place, we don't wantto post something and have people bash us. It should be a fun safe place.
I think there should be a certain "room" for maintainers to argue and then the oldest maintainers take a vote on who should or should not remain a maintainer, removing the loser from that position. He or she could still vote and hang out (unless being disruptive ofcourse)
That's how the boards i moderated always worked.
Truthfully, in my humble opinion, everything is fine. People get far too involved in what everyone else is doing on here. I think that we all just need to take a breath and relax and not be so petty. There are a few people who do nothing but complain about everything and they're the ones who are making more out of it than everyone else.
By whose definition? Are the people that use multiple aliases and who attack other users and who complaing non-stop about the very things they themselves are guilty of more qualified? I'm not directing this comment at you, I'm asking you to outline your criteria then. In theory, maintainers are actually being very lax. Vote spamming is a perfect example, as are attack ballots and users adding choices to ballots for the sole puropse to insult someone, etc. So I would have to disagree with you on that.
Good comments. I know that some users want the polls to be "accurate". I'm not sure what that means on a random outpost site like this. To have that expectation is unrealistic.
Obviously, some ballots have an enormous number of votes. If you were to compare that strictly to the number of active registered users then it is obvious many people have voted several times. While this is almost certainly occurring (on both sides of the issue) there are other explanations than accusing other users of vote stacking. I personally have seen ballot vote totals increase by 5 to 10 votes every minute (or in the time it might take me to vote one or 2 ballots (if I am quick) and continue for several hours. No user on this website has several hundred alias by which they can accomplish this. The poll is most likely linked to on another website like a blog and users there are voting on it. I'm not sure how else this can be done. I think that some of my polls get voted on because when someone searches for something, Google lists this site. I know this has happened on some of my ballots. It is also how I found this site. I lurked and voted several times on polls I liked or I thought were funny.
I'm guessing LCD would rather see a poll with 2000 votes even if spammed rather than one poll that might be more accurate but only has the votes of the 50 (maximum) number of active users. It makes his site look busier. Look, I have the 2nd most popular poll. There haven't been 2800 registered voters voting on this poll one single time. Vote spammed? Pretty sure of that. Do I care? No, this website is for entertainment not scientific research or polling (even though the subject of the ballot is very serious). Say the "no" votes on that ballot were winning - they aren't - and my personal opinion is strongly "yes", am I being highly unfair to delete the "no" option even if it is vote spammed? Yes. And here is the reason. There are plenty of users or visitors who would like to vote on the ballot even just for a single time. Deleting that option is blatantly unfair to them and far worse than any vote spamming. Deleting the "yes" or "no" options on a ballot just makes this site look like a juvenile playground (well maybe it is) where there is no point for anyone staying as the ballots are blatantly biased because there is no other option.
I'm reminded of a Jenny17 or everygirl ballot that asked something like "is george W. Bush the greatest president ever". It had one choice. Hey that's funny for a one time joke ballot but rather idiotic for the rest of the ballots.
As patch said... people get way too involved. Lets not delete stuff because we may "think" or "believe" it was vote spammed. That is really hard to prove and unlikely with some of the enormous totals some ballots. Only delete or wipe things that are racist, violations of site rules, etc. OK?
I see what you are saying FiddleFaddle and it has merit in my opinion. But to play devil's advocate, in some instances, people are using multiple aliases to log on and off and vote. The Jimmy Carter polls are an excellent example. I watched one ballot in particular go up by 15 votes in literally, a few minutes. That to me is a sure sign of someone acting in less than good faith to force a result. It has not validity then. How can anyone take the results seriously, knowing that one or two people did that? I am of the belief that no votes count unless associated with a comment. That applies to me as well. There are ballots I vote on, but don't comment on. When I look at a ballot, I only factor in those with associated comments as being valid. As for Google, odds are great that is not the reason. If you typed in Jimmy Carter or Israel as examples given, there are so many results, odds are great not as many people as you might expect make their way here from that search.
But in all honesty, there are some polls that have become so corrupted that it is probably best to delete the rigged choice and start fresh. Maybe that is dramatic, but I have read so many ballots lately with accusations of vote spamming, that it's clear that it is happening.
While it may, to a slight degree, deny someone the opportunity to vote that choice, in my opinion, if that ballots voting has been so rigged as to give a false reality, then those false votes are irrelevant and the choice deleted needs to be re-entered and people can then vote on it. I mean we're talking about old ballots here...it's so obvious someone is cheating. If it was a current ballot, maybe, but some are months or even a year old, and you can still see them constantly on the front page as most recent votes...of course someone is vote rigging.
The best solution would be to limit one vote per user, per ballot.
Anyway, a deleted choice is hardly the end of the world, but so is vote rigging. Both are not pleasant. I see both sides to the story, but again, in my opinion, vote spamming is beyond childish.
It has come to my attention that the choice was wiped. Not deleted with negative karma. The question now is by who?
The question you should be asking is how it is back up to a HUGE margin of "Yes" votes again. Was it not just wiped on the day this ballot was made? So how did it go from having no Yes votes, if it was wiped, to now having hundreds of Yes votes in but a couple of days? ANSWER: Vote rigging. No other reason. That is really indefensible in my opinion. There is now way it has received something like several hundred yes votes in that short period of time, unless, as was stated, it is being vote rigged. Who ever wiped it is not your concern, nor mine. What should be of concern to you is very obvious vote rigging. After all, you have issues with people doing it too, as you have made comments about it. Would you be happy if it was being vote rigged with the "NO" choice? I doubt it.
In fact, I think LCD should be made aware of this obvious scam
We cannot complain and accuse others of vote spamming and rigging when the choice is one we do not like and then turn around and do it (again, who ever is doing it). I believe that all of the choices in that ballot should either be cleansed, or the ballot closed. That is just my opinion, but clearly, there is scamming going on.
|
|
