Shenanigans! ):

[emo_snal]

   Something kind of horrible happaned over at ljshootout. The final poll had closed late because I was caught in that storm, and when I came back I was under enough heat so I just closed it immediately and since it was a tie we went to a runoff

Comments

[kittenboo]

I would think that the run-off should be run again if the results are different. Because people might have voted differently if they knew the 3rd person could have won.

[emo_snal]

Oh but the runoff was anonymous so they presumably didn't know who was who

[kittenboo]

oh I didn't realize that.

maybe i'm wrong but i can't see a reason why you should have to do the run off again. but i would only include the runoff results if the original vote with the fake votes eliminated was different.

[emo_snal]

yeah if you discard the votes it changes which 2 of the 3 in the runoff were eligible. It was sheer lucky coincidence that all three entered it (being anonymous I had the person no longer eligible in anyway to make it more confusing who is who). But so its a simple case of simply considering the person who now didn't make it to the runoff as noneligible and announcing the winner of the other two.

[pavel_lishin]

How about this: only allow people to vote if they have submitted a photo in the past.

Now, there's no way to program LJ for this (afaik), so there would be some hand-tabulation required, but hopefully this would remove any incentive to vote with fake accounts.

But this isn't fair to new members!

Yes it is. They've got cameras and internets, they can get voting rights as soon as they submit something.

What about fake accounts posting a single shitty photo to get voting rights, and never participating again outside of the votes?

Only allow people to vote who have submitted something in the past month.

[pavel_lishin]

Another objection has occurred to me: But voting should anonymous!

Clearly, people aren't capable of doing this fairly *and* anonymously, so fuck them.

[sra33]

I mean, personally I'd remove the fakes, then whoever won that poll... wins. :\ I mean, if a completely seperate 3rd person turns out to be the winner, it would kinda suck for those two people in the tie, but they had fake LJs voting for them and they knew the drill, so... well... tough luck to them.

~Sammy-Joe

[oldscratchx]

I wouldn't include fake accounts if you know for sure they are fake accounts. I would recount with those removed, if there is still a tie, have the run off, if not state your reasoning behind your decision and I'd list the fake accounts.

[aumonae]

Ugh. Those situations suck. I would count the original votes (minus the fake accounts) and declare a winner. If fraud was the only reason for the second vote then that vote is not valid and holds no bearing on the original.

Just my 2 cents.