[r] Malicious poll editing

[Hirota]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=385115

Current poll shows an order of:

Las Malvinas son Argentinas
The Falklands is a British Overseas Territory
The Falklands should be an independent island nation
Welcome back home to Russia, send the little green men in

Whilst a google cache snapshot of the poll shows number 1 and 2 are flipped earlier in the threads existence - approximately 3 minutes after the original post was made.

screenshot of the cache taken in the event there are problems with accessing the cache.

Edit: Since then it has been changed yet again. Vassenor took a screenshot.

Also took the liberty of screencapping my vote just in case OP actually is juggling the results.

Other posters have also commented on the malicious post editing by the new account.

[Duchy of Sark]

This order is wrong, and so are your allegations.

[The Archregimancy]

This order is wrong, and so are your allegations.

No, he's absolutely correct. Two separate individuals have provided evidence showing that you've deliberately manipulated the poll to change the results.

Given that I've now posted twice in that thread, I can't act on this directly, but I will be bringing this to the attention of my colleagues accordingly.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ill also post these images taken by Vassenor which you can find via Vass' own posts in the thread showing he changed the poll not once but twice.


http://i.imgur.com/e974EfQ.png

From the above to the below:

http://i.imgur.com/0pLq37k.png

edit: oops did not see Arch's post or the updated OP.

[Duchy of Sark]

This order is wrong, and so are your allegations.

No, he's absolutely correct. Two separate individuals have provided evidence showing that you've deliberately manipulated the poll to change the results.

Given that I've now posted twice in that thread, I can't act on this directly, but I will be bringing this to the attention of my colleagues accordingly.

I think the poll is being hacked by english cyber-troll factories who are avoiding the democratic vote authentication system API that is mandatory for all websites hosted in United Nations international law zones and soviereign jurisdictions.

[Vassenor]

Strike Three.

http://i.imgur.com/HVY5r2p.png to http://i.imgur.com/vq567XI.png

[The Huskar Social Union]

I can verify the third switch with my own screenshot: http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b484/emckernan2/liar_zpsw22oeqy8.png

[The Blaatschapen]

viewtopic.php?p=29463361#p29463361

[Frank Zipper]

Is this posting in bad faith from the same poster?

viewtopic.php?p=29463447#p29463447

They certainly just seem to want to disrupt the thread and draw attention to themselves.

[Duchy of Sark]

Is this posting in bad faith from the same poster?

viewtopic.php?p=29463447#p29463447

They certainly just seem to want to disrupt the thread and draw attention to themselves.

I think this is good faith and important

[Katganistan]

I think it is utter hogwash and misinformation.

You have edited the polls.
Locking threads is not against any law.

If you continue to disrupt threads with these wild assertions and to change the results of your polls after the fact, we will warn and ban you for the disruption.

Are we clear?

[The Blaatschapen]

I think it is utter hogwash and misinformation.

You have edited the polls.
Locking threads is not against any law.

If you continue to disrupt threads with these wild assertions and to change the results of your polls after the fact, we will warn and ban you for the disruption.

Are we clear?

I already banned them the second time they did it

[AiliailiA]

Um, suggestion not a report if that's OK?

Why allow option editing in polls at all? Sometimes after starting a poll, OP's get asked to add further options. That seems like the only legitimate reason for the OP to change anything about the poll, yet that doesn't work properly: it resets any votes already made to zero.

The only good reason to change an option after that poll has been started is to fix a typo or mis-spelling, or to add options. The former is trivial and the second isn't possible (without resetting the poll).

The ability of the OP to reset the poll results to zero is prone to abuse too.

So my suggestion is for moderators to send this to Technical, seeking an opinion on the practicality of locking threads from any editing whatsoever. Once any votes have been made, the poll would be fixed just the way the OP first wrote it.

[The Archregimancy]

Um, suggestion not a report if that's OK?

Why allow option editing in polls at all? Sometimes after starting a poll, OP's get asked to add further options. That seems like the only legitimate reason for the OP to change anything about the poll, yet that doesn't work properly: it resets any votes already made to zero.

The only good reason to change an option after that poll has been started is to fix a typo or mis-spelling, or to add options. The former is trivial and the second isn't possible (without resetting the poll).

The ability of the OP to reset the poll results to zero is prone to abuse too.

So my suggestion is for moderators to send this to Technical, seeking an opinion on the practicality of locking threads from any editing whatsoever. Once any votes have been made, the poll would be fixed just the way the OP first wrote it.

You raise an entirely valid point, and your suggestion is not without merit.

This came up for discussion within the team when we first identified the problem back in February. It's my understanding that it would be difficult to institute the change that you suggest, and that we'll therefore likely not be able to implement the suggested change.

It would be inappropriate to send this specific thread to Technical given it contains a series of valid moderation reports that we should keep in this forum, but by all means feel free to start your own Technical thread if you'd like to explore this further; I'm not particularly technically minded, after all, so likely shouldn't have the last word on feasibility.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Um, suggestion not a report if that's OK?

Why allow option editing in polls at all? Sometimes after starting a poll, OP's get asked to add further options. That seems like the only legitimate reason for the OP to change anything about the poll, yet that doesn't work properly: it resets any votes already made to zero.

The only good reason to change an option after that poll has been started is to fix a typo or mis-spelling, or to add options. The former is trivial and the second isn't possible (without resetting the poll).

The ability of the OP to reset the poll results to zero is prone to abuse too.

So my suggestion is for moderators to send this to Technical, seeking an opinion on the practicality of locking threads from any editing whatsoever. Once any votes have been made, the poll would be fixed just the way the OP first wrote it.

You raise an entirely valid point, and your suggestion is not without merit.

This came up for discussion within the team when we first identified the problem back in February. It's my understanding that it would be difficult to institute the change that you suggest, and that we'll therefore likely not be able to implement the suggested change.

It would be inappropriate to send this specific thread to Technical given it contains a series of valid moderation reports that we should keep in this forum, but by all means feel free to start your own Technical thread if you'd like to explore this further; I'm not particularly technically minded, after all, so likely shouldn't have the last word on feasibility.

I would also like to point out since this discussion is being raised, that there are sometimes very valid reasons for thread OP's to change the poll. (Glaring typos, fallacies, new events which require new polls, etcetera.)

[Ularn]

You raise an entirely valid point, and your suggestion is not without merit.

This came up for discussion within the team when we first identified the problem back in February. It's my understanding that it would be difficult to institute the change that you suggest, and that we'll therefore likely not be able to implement the suggested change.

It would be inappropriate to send this specific thread to Technical given it contains a series of valid moderation reports that we should keep in this forum, but by all means feel free to start your own Technical thread if you'd like to explore this further; I'm not particularly technically minded, after all, so likely shouldn't have the last word on feasibility.

I would also like to point out since this discussion is being raised, that there are sometimes very valid reasons for thread OP's to change the poll. (Glaring typos, fallacies, new events which require new polls, etcetera.)

In addition, it's common for Roleplayers, especially on the P2tM boards, to run short-term polls in the OOC. Sometimes these may be relevant to the IC thread ("What should happen to the party next?") and sometimes they'll be less vital and more daft ("Which Player Character has the wittiest banter on Twitter?"*) and for these polls the OP will need to edit or delete the poll once it has served its purpose so they can set up the next one.

If some sort of control is introduced to poll-editing, I would suggest (if this is possible) that it should only be to wipe all existing poll answers any time the poll has its question or answers modified. That way it remains possible to edit a poll but doing so maliciously will not result in skewed results, as the results will be reset to 0 with each edit. This would essentially render malicious poll-editing impossible or, at worst, a minor act of trolling that only serves to cause minor inconvenience to anyone who cares enough to go back and re-enter their answer on the poll. Presumably the people most likely to care would be active in the thread and able spot the reset easily and re-enter their answer, and the people who aren't active would not be sufficiently bothered to care if the poll's reset.

* Actually a question we had in a superhero RP I did where there was an in-universe social network for superheroes and their fans

[The Archregimancy]

People, this is a potentially useful discussion, but can we perhaps either start a discussion thread here or take it to Technical rather than use this report thread - thanks.

[Hirota]

People, this is a potentially useful discussion, but can we perhaps either start a discussion thread here or take it to Technical rather than use this report thread - thanks.

And done.