PvXwiki talk:Biased Voting

Obviously, this was partially a response to the recent Wiki-drama surrounding the R/D Dust Tank and the successive failure of the One account per IP policy, but it's got some more general elements which will hopefully provide more solid precedent for any discussion related to biased voting. The instances I've included were the major ones I could think up off the top of my head, but if anyone wants to suggest a corollary, an addendum, or anything else for that matter, they're welcome to do so. Any thoughts? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:54, 25 November 2007 (CET)


 * /Agree with the no voting on other accounts builds that are on the same IP address.--[[Image:ViYsig5.jpg|19px]] Victory  (talk /pvxcontribs ) 05:56, 25 November 2007 (CET)


 * Yeah, there's no way to verify that a number of accounts that share an IP are in fact the product of a similar number of distinct persons, so, short of restricting the number of accounts per IP (that policy already failed), this seemed like the best solution. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:58, 25 November 2007 (CET)

/agree -- Armond Warblade 07:04, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Tbh, we don't need to state that people with real-world connections can't rate each other's builds. We can simply hold them to the same level of scrutiny as we do to build authors. This kind of sockpuppetry is hardly common; the most important biased rating we see here is retaliatory and guild/friend group votes. The stress of this policy should be inversed. We can easily permit users to rate whichever builds they want, as long as they are sound and reasoned ratings. If they are giving biased ratings, positive or negative ones, then we should say that they may not rate builds in that matter, and remove the ratings. - Krowman    07:40, 25 November 2007 (CET)
 * Hmmm... well, I'm not sure whether or not I agree with that logic. Either way, I'll take another look tomorrow when I get a chance, feel free to write a second version of the proposal (or to re-draft a part of it) and save me the work though ;).  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  07:48, 25 November 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, it's late here too (though not as late as where you live (= ); I meant to pop in quickly and go. I'll talk to you tomorrow. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:54, 25 November 2007 (CET)
 * I'm fine with this. - Auron 08:14, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Looks good to me. Krowman's point about being more strict about votes from the same IP as the author instead of just forbidding them from voting seems like a decent idea, as well. --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 22:21, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Just my 2 cents before i go to bed for the evening. For starters, bias isn't a problem. Everyone is biased about almost every build. As an debate class will reveal, bias is only a problem if one can prove or provide that the bias is leading to a fabrication of facts, or in this case, a builds ability. Tbh, I'd rather the BM policy be passed and increase moderation and regulation instead of restricting voting from sources that are potentially biased. I also disagree with this policy confirming that non-author votes are subject to less scrutiny. All votes should be subject to the same scrutiny, regardless of who posted it. I feel that this policy, while well intentioned and probably effective, is unnecesary since there a better ways to deal with bias related fabrications then simply removing them.Bob fregman 04:07, 26 November 2007 (CET)
 * I disagree with bias not being a problem. Of course everyone has a bias, and bias in of itself does not have a negative connotation; however, the bias that this policy seeks to address is unsubstantiated bias.  I'm biased against most A/D Crit Scythe Builds because they're bad, but I can give reasons "why" they're bad, but that's besides the point.  The problem is when you have authors and their friends/guild-mates voting in a biased manner that has nothing to do with factual evidence.  To address your next point, I don't see how this policy runs contrary to the BM policy.  This policy establishes a very general guideline and some degree of "legal" precedent for actions taken by Sysops (or BMs) that relate to the issue of biased voting.  As to restricting votes, I'm leaning towards changing the policy along (at least some of) the lines of Krowman's suggestions so that we're not actually restricting potentially biased votes, but rather holding them to a higher standard.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:17, 26 November 2007 (CET)
 * The differences between this policy and the BM policy, fyi, are that this policy nerfs suspect users while the BM policy buffs good ones. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 07:33, 26 November 2007 (CET)

Could be reworded to something like "If you are proven to have any connection to the build or build author in question, which could be interpreted as unfair bias, then your rating will be held to higher scrutiny, and possibly removed." Something like that is the idea I'm putting forth. Of course, you (DE) can rephrase it into your own words, to maintain the flow and syntax of your writing in the rest of the article. Btw, this policy is separate from the proposed (trial run?) BM policy, they address different problems of the site, and bias is certainly a problem we regularly see here. - Krowman    07:38, 26 November 2007 (CET)

DE, that's basically what i was saying, and i agree with you fully. I feel that, however, we should just ensure that all questionable votes are good rather than forbidding same account IPs from voting. It doesnt seem like it requires any less moderation to implement this policy, so i don't see its usefullness, though i agree with its intentions.Bob fregman 00:56, 27 November 2007 (CET)

Admins Removing Votes on Builds They Post
Biased vote removal? Not sating that this is or will become a problem, just wondering what anyone thoughts are.Bob fregman 19:51, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 * It could be a problem, but I trust the hell out of the admins/mods on this site. --71.229.204.25 19:53, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 * From PvX:VETTING: Excepting cases of sockpuppetry and/or vandalism, Administrators are expected not to remove votes from builds they have created, and should allow another less biased Administrator to make a determination on whether or not a vote should be removed. &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( sysop ) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 * While i didnt see that, being expected not to, and forbidden from, are two different things. To boot, many admins do remove votes from their own builds.Bob fregman 15:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Disruption
Shouldn't this be merged with Disruption? Anyway, socks are already in Disruption. -- Guild of  Deals  09:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 * ...Erm... this policy is related to Disruption how? [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  11:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Users not testing before they vote
Users really should test a build before they vote. It is common sense... Even if the build goes like Echo, Arcane Echo, Mending, Frenzy, Healing Signet. It should be tested for what it is designed for. It may just work!

Example

4-3-2: I've tested this on the 3 continents. It can solo most of the areas in Hard Mode(The Falls,Pongmei valley and Arkjok Ward), but has troubles with moving patrols etc due to self-snares, which is followed by more aggro than it can handle. Not that innovative really as it's a variant of build X on that topic. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minus The Great (contribs).


 * We've been over this plenty of times, and I discussed this on your talk page. Triple-profession builds never work, by the way. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 13:53, 24 January 2008 (EST)

*Defiant Elements*  +talk  16:16, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * 1) Even if we wanted to require users to test builds, a user who didn't test a build before voting wouldn't be biased. Therefore, this suggestion does not belong on this policy
 * 2) There's no way to enforce this
 * 3) We've already had this debate, the answer is always a resounding "No!"

Add to Real vetting
Shouldn't we jsut add this to real vetting? There are only a few minor differences, and it'd probably be more widely read than this one. PheNaxKian Sysop   10:51, 13 September 2008 (EDT)