[matmat]

. . . and then the world was a happier place . . .

[Aberlour10]

+amen-

[Vampyr]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 10:41, said:

FWIW I just + voted myself 40 times after losing ~50 in 2 days of not posting on random old threads, and ~100 in general from lurpoa and some brand new accounts. Sorry if anyone is offended by that action, I am not trying to be a downvote police or whatever, and would not do that just because I disagreed with a BS - vote or something in normal conditions. Posting here to explain/not be shady.

It is not true that explain=not be shady. The system is what it is. Either go with it or lobby for change. Your not liking the way it works is not an excuse for cheating.

[jillybean]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 12:34, said:

Finally, in relation to the Lurpoa thing:

http://www.bridgebas...917#entry555917

Action finally taken against Lurpoa. Rain thinks that Lurpoa was driven to this due to our harassment! I made a long post. My favorite part was remembering that jillybean first mass downvoted everyone in this thread (while downvoting was anonymous), then spammed this thread hoping for + votes (still anon downvoting). Then - votes were public, and I downvoted her, and she messaged me on BBO telling me to stop downvoting her! Haha. That is right up there with Lurpoa's profile posting that is in my signature, while downvoting everyone.

Haters gonna hate. At least jilly had the sense to stop downvoting everyone for no reason.

Justin, I jumped on the random down vote wagon when down votes were anonymous in an attempt highlight the absurdity of the system, as was giving upvotes to anyone who merely contributed to this thread. Fun, but absurd.

For me, the up vote/down vote system is just as ineffective at tracking forum expertise as master points are of bridge ability. The good posters know who they are and after a short while on forums, readers will know whose advice to follow.

My comment to you "stop down voting me!!!" was intended as a tongue in cheek response to our obvious up/down vote war on forums, sorry you took it any other way.

[JLOGIC]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-23, 17:11, said:

It is not true that explain=not be shady. The system is what it is. Either go with it or lobby for change. Your not liking the way it works is not an excuse for cheating.

This was in reply to:

Quote

FWIW I just + voted myself 40 times after losing ~50 in 2 days of not posting on random old threads, and ~100 in general from lurpoa and some brand new accounts. Sorry if anyone is offended by that action, I am not trying to be a downvote police or whatever, and would not do that just because I disagreed with a BS - vote or something in normal conditions. Posting here to explain/not be shady.

Do you really feel this way? Do others? I know Vampyr is just a jealous hater troll in general but I actually didn't think anyone would think this, so I will undo it if others do. FWIW it was 100 % Lurpoa creating multiple accounts that made no posts with the sole purpose of downvoting me as many times as possible, and + voting her, which she was recently banned for.

[Bbradley62]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 21:45, said:

Do you really feel this way? Do others?

Yes. But I also think that what's done is done and we should all be ready to move on. I don't see much point in undoing anything.

 Bbradley62, on 2011-June-08, 22:15, said:

Seems like a lot of effort to get adults to behave like adults.

[JLOGIC]

 Bbradley62, on 2011-June-23, 22:03, said:

Yes. But I also think that what's done is done and we should all be ready to move on. I don't see much point in undoing anything.

If people view me as cheating at something when that was not my intent then there is a lot of point to me in rectifying that. I am a lot of negative things but a cheater is not one of them.

[Vampyr]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 21:45, said:

I know Vampyr is just a jealous hater troll in general

Oops! Sorry I downvoted you. If I upvote you will you take it back?

[Vampyr]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 21:45, said:

FWIW it was 100 % Lurpoa creating multiple accounts that made no posts with the sole purpose of downvoting me as many times as possible, and + voting her, which she was recently banned for.

That's all right then. If other people are doing it it is not cheating.

[hotShot]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-June-23, 10:41, said:

FWIW I just + voted myself 40 times after losing ~50 in 2 days of not posting on random old threads, and ~100 in general from lurpoa and some brand new accounts. Sorry if anyone is offended by that action, I am not trying to be a downvote police or whatever, and would not do that just because I disagreed with a BS - vote or something in normal conditions. Posting here to explain/not be shady.

Dear JLOGIC, JLOL, PhantomSac and joeyc, LOL Lurpoa, BridgMORON, go away, Slave2BWS

I would have thought that wining an international title gives someone reputation and that forum points are .... well ... junk.



http://www.bridgebas...ner-competition
http://www.bridgebas...ish-rebid-after

Edited after reading JLOGIC post #114.

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2011-June-25, 06:36

[Vampyr]

Wow, I hadn't noticed that he used his aliases to give multiple downvotes to Lurpoa as well!

Some sort of ban has been imposed on Lurpoa. But only Lurpoa.

[Elianna]

Someone was clearly the instigator of this, and that person was clearly rounded on by many BBOers.

Someone else decided to fight what that person did with the same tools. Probably wrong, too, but not equally.

And honestly, many of the rest of us were just bystanders, and weren't really affected.

I don't really care that Justin upvoted himself or downvoted others with other personas. (BTW, I find it really amusing that many of them have MANY more posts than I do).

I can totally see why the person on timeout (banned? not sure I understood Rain's post, and not sure that I really care or that it's my business) would be upset that Justin and his personas weren't treated in the same way, but I don't understand why it should be my business, nor anyone else's.

If someone is really bothered, they can take it to the moderators, but two (at least, that I saw) posts on BBF calling for his banning seem really over the top to me. What is meant to be accomplished? An idea of "equal treatment" (equal != fair, btw) which I think is off? Banning someone whose post have (for the most part) increased the amount of knowledge and expertise shared on BBF?

For those who this was TL;DR: If you have a complaint, PM the moderators, stop attacking someone, and let's all let this die down.

[Rain]

The reason Lurpoa was the only one banned (temporarily, by me) was that I thought she was the one who started aliases for the sole reason for voting. I stated in the other post I know as a result of that action, some others (Justin) have felt the need to retaliate by also creating aliases and doing the same.

Since Justin only did it to retaliate, once Lurpoa stopped doing so, I think Justin will too. Hence there was no need to ban anyone else. But if, for example, Justin is still using extra names for the sole purpose of useless voting and not for the usual use of forum after equilibrium is restored, then I will ban Justin too.

Also, I think we will soon have a group for newbies. Newbies cannot vote. They will be promoted to normal members after some few contributions, and then receive full voting rights. (This may be in place already, I don't know. Gerardo confirm please?)

[JLOGIC]

I used aliases to bring lurpoa to -100 or something first. At that time, she was only using her own name to downvote people randomly, and to downvote people who downvoted her (Antrax). I have linked instances of her just downvoting entire threads.

So for the offense that she was banned for, I did it first, and if you want to ban me also that's fine.

Again, it is not like I hid this, I did it on my own names that I used to post on that everyone knows. The other random names are not mine, I'm pretty sure I know who they belong to but they are not mine. So, likely someone else did what I did.

After this, lurpoa made multiple names to downvote me and upvote herself. I then upvoted myself as many times as she downvoted me on her aliases.

Yes, I acted as a vigilante in a sense, and probably deserve to be banned as much as lurpoa did. I took one for the team!

Yes, I view Vampyr as saying I cheated the system by upvoting myself as many times as lurpoa downvoted me once there was a war as pretty stupid. It is not like I just thought Lurpoas downvotes were dumb and disagreed with them, surely someone can understand the difference with "I think Vampyr is a troll hater, so I will undo it (this is my opinion and I would not do this)" vs "Lurpoa is making new names to downvote me becuase we are in some kind of flame war, so I will undo that (this is not really related to my opinion)." But whatever. I admit I acted as a vigilante in both instances, and that is why I publicly posted about it in both cases, and did it on my known names. If you actually think that I was trying to cheat the system and get away with it and be shady, then you have completely lost objectivity, even if you are a jealous/hater/troll. I don't know what else to tell you.

I don't really care, I would be happy for my rep to be -1,000, I don't really need another reason to have more jealous haters on the forums, they will always know that I had by far the most rep without even thinking about rep, and that nobody will give them rep as badly as they want it. I am sorry that some of you will always be old, bitter, people who suck at bridge and have no social skills/life no matter what you do. If that were me, I'd be a hater too, and comfort myself with "see, justin just cheated!!!" The saddest part of your lives will always be that you can't even see that if the situation was reversed how you would think completely the opposite.

I fully expected to be banned before, I assumed the fact that I wasn't and lurpoa was was some kind of acknowledgment that lurpoa was being malicious and deserved what she got, even if they could not publicly say that... I even thought the wording of "creating accounts solely to spam the rep" was intentional, since my accounts were not created for that purpose... the fact that rain basically said she banned lurpoa and not me because she did not know what was going on, and once again made the wrong decision due to her own ignorance is the most ironic things I have ever heard.

[JLOGIC]

 hotShot, on 2011-June-24, 03:24, said:

Dear JLOGIC, JLOL, PhantomSac, joeyc, LOL Lurpoa, BridgMORON, go away, Slave2BWS

I would have thought that wining an international title gives someone reputation and that forum points are .... well ... junk.



http://www.bridgebas...ner-competition
http://www.bridgebas...ish-rebid-after

Dear ***** Face,

My names are well known. The other names are not mine. Get your facts straight, or kindly DIAGF.

Yours Truly

[JLOGIC]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-24, 14:59, said:

Wow, I hadn't noticed that he used his aliases to give multiple downvotes to Lurpoa as well!

Some sort of ban has been imposed on Lurpoa. But only Lurpoa.

Dear Dumb *****,

Which rule did I violate that Lurpoa did?

But why would I think that you had any brain at all that you could use? Seriously, if your goal is to point out my violations, and you are incapable of doing so, LOL @ you. Let me help.

Yours Truly

[JLOGIC]

HATERZ GONNA HATE

[Aberlour10]

As I wrote in the other thread, this whole + - thing will bring only a lot of bad blood to the forums, but I did not think this will happen so fast.

[uday]

 Aberlour10, on 2011-June-25, 06:18, said:

As I wrote in the other thread, this whole + - thing will bring only a lot of bad blood to the forums

I'm starting to understand why Facebook et all only allow you to upVote. Maybe we made a mistake. I'll raise this topic w/Rain.

U

[Vampyr]

 uday, on 2011-June-25, 08:20, said:

I'm starting to understand why Facebook et all only allow you to upVote. Maybe we made a mistake. I'll raise this topic w/Rain.

U

It may be dangerous too -- if you look at a few of the previous quotes, it seems that there is one poster in particular who is about to explode over the issue.

But I have had an idea -- what about allowing votes for posts, but not having them accrue towards reputation -- so people won't have a reputation, but posts will. This will make some of the childish behaviour less worthwhile.