Going ona limb here and say that he chose not to adress it, because he eitjer did not feel like it or straigh up cannot
Trail braking is an essential skill for motorcycle riders.
If you give the votes from all your alt accounts to a single account, then you can cast all your votes together.
This is a good point. In our group you must apply, and be approved manually by someone. Even if someone did load up the Discord Candidates with bots it would start to get obvious how all these people (who say or do nothing) are handing their votes to obscure people. I have ways of checking for inactivity (and furthermore, alts).
Considering nothing about the voting process is anonymous or hidden, IE you can see who is voting on what and where, you will 100% know who gave their vote to who.
If it works, good.
The potential for abuse is stupendously high tho.
The potential for abuse is high in any system, unless you do ridiculous trade-offs.
Make the vote go for 24 hours.
Read the bottom part of my reply before. I’ll just put it here so you have to read it.
1 Like
OK I think it makes sense now. Just worded really funky.
Any user can create votes at anytime, so long as the vote meets the rules and is well-made. Even if the vote doesn’t meet the rules, and I think its an important vote that needs a fair start (well-crafted beggining and explaination) then I’ll delete their vote and re-create it in a better manner, with the proper answers/choices for people to choose from.
If only the staff were the ones putting out what to vote on, then the staff could of course only put out a certain amount of topics. This is very 1984-ish where the government can limit the amount of words to use to speak about topics. Newspeak. But instead of words, its ideas brought to the table.
Why would a small council of “elected” people be more effective at creating new votes/questions than everyone in a population? Whats stopping them, as ordinary members, from creating the new votes without sectioning off this authority to a council, then giving them council status?
Thats like saying this forums posts would be better if only the moderators or regulars could be the only ones suggesting new content, they’re the only ones “putting the questions out” and those questions are supposedly apparently better, because authority?
In this case the simplest thing you could do is allow everybody to vote instead of manually vettign them. Sure, check for irregularities and boot people/invalidate the votes if it is obioulsy funky. but literally going out and saying that only people you persoanlly approve can vote is about the same as ditching the voting process alltogether.
I sort of understand what you’re going for. The 1984 comparison was a bit over the top but I’d say an elected council to resolve deadlocks, make decisions on the voting process etc would at least help so that it doesn’t end up being entirely unregulated. It’d be better if it’s an elected council responsible for managing the democratic parts than admins for very obvious reasons (people have a say, dumb council members get voted out, etc)
Everyone (that is a member) would be able to vote. I never implied there would be a “vetting” process, rather I’d just actively check votes and try to stay vigilant. Vetting processes are 
again not what I was suggesting
I just grab analogies out of my . If you got it, then it worked.
This already exists. As I claimed earlier, if a vote is stuck, the higher ups will decide. If the higher ups already voted, then we’d use their existing votes.
Decisions on how the voting process should be, can be voted on. So long as it doesn’t break the simple rules, IE discriminating against certain members. Someone once tried to discriminate against new members by saying they shouldn’t vote, which I thought was for good intent, but ultimately against the rules.
Rather, people should be voted into positions that are very undemocratic. Take for example a government. Foreign Policy is much out of the hands of people, and is very undemocratic. People usually have zero stake in how a government interacts with other ones, whether friendly or imperializing them. idk where I’m going with this lol
You’d think democracy would lead to bad members getting kicked and good ones being promoted, but really just the most controversial ones get kicked and crony low-profile people stay. History has repeated this over and over.
Huh my bad, must have read soemthing into it then.
As for the vetting process, that is literally what your bordwerwall bot attempts to dpo. Also the analogy is there.
Borderwall
- Keeps self bots out
- Keeps raid bots out
- Keeps lazy raiders out of the Discord
- Keeps users who are literally too lazy to apply for the group out of the Discord
It essentially keeps out all the people we wouldn’t want in our group, and therefore shouldn’t be involved with any election or vote or anything.
I can assure you it does not
The basic ones, yes. The ones made to fuck w/ you, not so much
Ye, but so will forcing phone verification
forcing phone verification
isn’t it somewhat undemocratic to exclude people based on the fact that they can’t afford a phone?
more or less, this is just a digital poll tax
Self bots usually are only for Discord. A self bot would have to know how to use webpages, complete CAPTCHA’s, and all while having different IPs.
thats a bit too much. I dont even have my phone hooked up.
I can use the self-bots acc and just join like your normally would, sicne it is, you know, a self-bot so it’s not a bot account.
Then after that, theres nothing the bot/account can do but talk in a single chat. Sure, they could be annoying and spam, but they cant post images, or anything else. Ez ban. waste of time on their part.
Plotting a big “raid” on the Discord would take hours, banning takes seconds.
Ye. You could get all the bot accs vetted, but that’d arguebaly not be worth it.
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.