Server Allow public voting on LBRs.

[erin]

Back in February 2022, indefinite ban requests were public. Anyone could see them in full, and anyone could vote. However a series of DDOS attacks on the forum, as well as harassment drives on staff members, they were privatised due to the issue of IP addresses - people didn't like them being public, but they were necessary for the ban request, and neither side were willing to budge. Thus, due to this reason alone, they were made admin only and stayed that way despite many suggestions and attempts to work both ways.

Now, two years on and with the use of xenforo, the issue has finally been addressed. IPs can be hidden from public use, but the rest of the ban request can still be publically viewable. Just how it was..

Except, public voting hasn't been reinstated. Now the reason given is "to prevent vote rigging", and while I can respect that we obviously don't want vote rigging, I feel there are better ways to prevent it. Especially as in my time on tf, I can't remember one incident of what could be considered as attempted vote rigging happening on ban requests. Often, the person being ban requested didn't even put an objection on their own request, let alone getting their friends to object.


I personally believe that, instead of outright restricting community input and feedback on ban requests to avoid something that hasn't even happened yet, it should be allowed. If any cases of potential vote rigging arise, the executive ban manager can use their judgement on any suspect votes, one way or the other, to ensure it is processed fairly.

In short, I don't see a good reason why community votes shouldn't be allowed. There was never an issue when we had them, the only reason ban requests were private was due to an unrelated issue which is now fixed.

 

[Telesphoreo]

Evidence by ops can still be submitted and taken into consideration

 

[erin]

Evidence by ops can still be submitted and taken into consideration

I know, the suggestion is for ops to be able to vote since I don't think there's a good reason why they can't.

 

[Telesphoreo]

I object. As long as they are able to submit evidence, I think that's good enough. The intent was to increase transparency and we've done that now.

 

[Alco_Rs11]

I Object. The entire purpose of the change was to increase transparency and serve as a useful aid in telling someone why they are subject to a Long-Term Ban. There was no intention or desire to allow players to vote and this conclusion was reached after a discussion amongst the other Executives. Players instead are actively encouraged to contact an admin if they have evidence in support or against a ban as always.

 

[Luke]

yeahhh i’m gonna lean towards objection.

There was never an issue when we had them,

this is untrue. we did have issues of brigading & vote rigging.

Especially as in my time on tf, I can't remember one incident of what could be considered as attempted vote rigging happening on ban requests.

i recall (and i could 100% be wrong) granite castle brigading votes to protect each other. it was quite a huge issue at the time.

the issue with the voting system is that we cannot outrule brigading cuz there’s often no evidence of it. lets say i’ve got a request open against me:

- Video, Shdwo and Akefu Brewer all vouch for the ban.
- markbyron, Wild1145 and creeperseth vote for my freedom.
- My friends, Robin, decyj145, NukeCoderX and 1RS all vote for my freedom tactically, as part of a bridgade.

What is stopping these measures from blocking the votes of Mark, Wild, and Seth despite the fact that they didn’t vote in a brigade? All we’d have is suspicion. If we then start doing that is the vote even a real vote or just a show?

Then if we can’t block the votes of Robin, Declan, NerdCoder and 1RS then the vote is rigged and cannot be justifiable.

In an ideal world we’d be able to tell. But unfortunately TF is somehow the most retarded thing i’ve seen and also the most clever… some methods to evade detection are astonishing

 

[shdwo]

I object due to the above reasoning

 

[videogamesm12]

Those who are actively involved in corrupt groups on par with the Granite Castle will just attempt to influence the community in other ways like making long-winded suggestions to prematurely end a sanction. Preventing the common player from voting will not prevent this from happening.

 

[Telesphoreo]

Those who are actively involved in corrupt groups on par with the Granite Castle will just attempt to influence the community in other ways like making long-winded suggestions to prematurely end a sanction. Preventing the common player from voting will not prevent this from happening.

I think that's somewhat irrelevant as yes, a lot of people part of a group could easily have influence. But the context is different as if Alco or someone suspected vote rigging, there would be pandemonium from both sides defending / opposing the allegations of false voting. And truthfully, the malicious people in the community could be very vocal in defending that their votes aren't rigged. I don't see how this really adds anything as their entire goal is to influence people. Thanks for pointing out the obvious?... We're trying to close out a very obvious gray area avenue in which they can do it, and which it is very hard to prove there is or isn't rigging.

I'll state that again, the intent was to increase transparency, not to allow the community to vote on LBRs. If an OP has hard evidence for or against someone with an LBR, then fantastic. They still have every right to report it. But it requires a reasonable barrier to entry rather than just "hey granite castle, let's all object on this ban appeal"

 

[Taah]

I object. I understand what your points are and I'm all for transparency and allowing them to vote, but with the history of how TotalFreedom has been where things turn into popularity contests, it's a slight risk in allowing operators to vote.

 

[Telesphoreo]

Marking this as denied