[sldev] Your Feedback Wanted on Search Flagging !

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 01:46 -0400, Bj Raz wrote:
> I can see where Darien Caldwell is coming from about RL vs avatars.
> If one person owns 5 SL accounts and thus decides to abuse the system
> thus, you can get bad data because the person is spamming on not one
> account (cause you can't) but because they logged onto all five of
> there accounts and with all of the five different User names, voted
> something up or down, if griefing is done by telling others to logon
> to each of there accounts, then you could be getting VERY bad data
> because the greifers are all logging on to each of there 5 accounts
> and telling there friends (who are griefers) to do the same, thus
> manipulating the system. 
> 
> This is a class RED scenario, how do you see preventing this?

Sigh, once again, my proposal handles this just fine. It doesn't matter
if its one person or a group of people trying to game the system, if
they concentrate on a single listing, all it will accomplish is to push
that listing higher in the review queue, meaning the review team will
get to it sooner, who will then whitelist the listing as being
legitimate, thus protecting that listing from all further abuse.

Flooding a legitimate listing with illegitimate flaggings will only
result in making the abuse attempt all the more obvious, and thus the
more likely, and quickly, the review team's banhammer will come down on
the abusers.

Seriously, I'm a connoisseur of interweb drama. I've seen it all. Go
ahead, try and stump me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080504/547d5dc5/attachment-0001.pgp