Cheating on "Inside Blogging" and strolling trolls

Service: Narrative

Cheating on "Inside Blogging" and strolling trolls

Service: Narrative

Inside Blogging, a niche I had suggested, has two absurd bids from two clearly fake and brand new accounts, obviously coming from the same person. It's clear revenge for my appeal on BLOG. I was not going to buy the niche anyway, seen the unreliable scenario, but please stop this madness. There are already several fake accounts that can do anything and that we all know come from the same person. I can't believe they're still allowed to stroll around and sabotage.

cc: @Malkazoid@Christina Gleason,  @Bashar Abdullah

Original Post

Activity Stream

Seen them too. The issue here I think is there are no clear terms to ban a new low reputation account for bidding on up to 10 niches at the time. And no control over how many times or how high they can bid. And I'm seeing genuine users trying to outbid them on other niches they really want.

This is why I don't think bidding is wise right now, until Narrative can control the situation. It's unfair to decent bidders.

There is a problem with this David, which you may not be taking into account when saying yes, we should congratulate a member who has started serial trolling the site in multiple ways, for winning a niche with a dummy account, as part of a campaign of spamming well over a dozen niches with bids.

Other bidders understandably stop bidding when faced with this sort of scenario because otherwise they will pay more for a niche that the person bidding up across from them probably doesn't intend to buy.  If you know someone is bidding in a pattern that suggests an attempt to disrupt the platform, the bid on the niche you want becomes impossible to diagnose.  Is it serious, or not?  This doubt is what the troll wants.  He's smart, and for now, he's outsmarting us.

The genuine bidders will sit back and trust that the clearly fraudulent user will be punished by the site, not rewarded with the niche and congratulated ...  they won't keep bidding against someone like this.

So no, @Vico Biscotti should not congratulate the dummy account holder if they end up paying.  @Vico Biscotti has been cheated out of a chance to win the niche himself.  He may have been ready to bid more than the dummy account did, and may have abstained only because he knew the bidder was a troll.

David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Disagree. He probably won't pay, but he MAY pay, and still acting just for revenge, and then sabotage the niche. And if he doesn't pay he's still there altering bids, delaying purchases (even delaying is part of his scheme), and giving a confusing picture to new users.

We wait for the team to solve but, IMO, the thing is serious.

cc: @Malkazoid

Vico Biscotti posted:
David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Disagree. He probably won't pay, but he MAY pay, and still acting just for revenge, and then sabotage the niche. And if he doesn't pay he's still there altering bids, delaying purchases (even delaying is part of his scheme), and giving a confusing picture to new users.

We wait for the team to solve but, IMO, the thing is serious.

cc: @Malkazoid

As @Vico Biscotti says, and I'll add,  Just because the person (s) has the money to pay the bid, doesn't guarantee anything about the persons' intent.

Colleen Ryer posted:
Vico Biscotti posted:
David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Disagree. He probably won't pay, but he MAY pay, and still acting just for revenge, and then sabotage the niche. And if he doesn't pay he's still there altering bids, delaying purchases (even delaying is part of his scheme), and giving a confusing picture to new users.

We wait for the team to solve but, IMO, the thing is serious.

cc: @Malkazoid

As @Vico Biscotti says, and I'll add,  Just because the person (s) has the money to pay the bid, doesn't guarantee anything about the persons' intent.

Should we make any assumptions about intent until or unless the Niche is paid or not paid?

Let me temper things here - we are aware of the activity going on and are examining the best path forward where we can utilize (and adjust as needed) the system/rules to automatically take care of behaviors.   We want the system to do the work as it is important moving forward. We expected some things to be tested.  While it doesn't seem like we are acting as fast as you would like, it is important to look across a bunch of behaviors and patterns so we can best adjust.  

David Dreezer posted:
Colleen Ryer posted:
Vico Biscotti posted:
David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Disagree. He probably won't pay, but he MAY pay, and still acting just for revenge, and then sabotage the niche. And if he doesn't pay he's still there altering bids, delaying purchases (even delaying is part of his scheme), and giving a confusing picture to new users.

We wait for the team to solve but, IMO, the thing is serious.

cc: @Malkazoid

As @Vico Biscotti says, and I'll add,  Just because the person (s) has the money to pay the bid, doesn't guarantee anything about the persons' intent.

Should we make any assumptions about intent until or unless the Niche is paid or not paid?

Hi @David Dreezer To clarify, this person's actions has already raised serious flags, would still warrant a close eye, even if bid is paid, that's all.

I don't think this individual intends to pay. @Vico Biscotti, yours is not the only niche he bid on and won. He's targeted multiple niches, including one that was being bid on by a member of Narrative staff, @Rosemaryhttps://www.narrative.org/hq/auction/9197106484215445

This type of behavior is clearly intended to be disruptive and nothing else. He targeted several niches being bid on by another user, with a rep of 59, named Shane Andis. This Narrator is fairly new to the platform but looks like has good intentions. Will he leave the platform over this? Maybe, maybe not. But he could. And how long will this continue before he drives away a number of users with good intent who may not understand that this guy is just having some fun.

My guess is, it's a competitor who wants to challenge the platform's technology. Keep diddling and he'll win.

Thanks for the reply, @MOLLY O. It helps to hear from you, and we all know you need time. I'm just worried that without human intervention, malevolent behavior can have a long life, and do damages in the meanwhile. We need a safe and fair environment to publish and connect. Hope you reach that point. Good work.

MOLLY O posted:

Let me temper things here - we are aware of the activity going on and are examining the best path forward where we can utilize (and adjust as needed) the system/rules to automatically take care of behaviors.   We want the system to do the work as it is important moving forward. We expected some things to be tested.  While it doesn't seem like we are acting as fast as you would like, it is important to look across a bunch of behaviors and patterns so we can best adjust.  

   @MOLLY O I'm not concerned with the speed of response: it was the weekend and this is the first work day dealing with the situation.

I am concerned when it is suggested we should congratulate the troll if he pays for the niche.  He shouldn't be able to get the niche at all, no matter how much he pays, because he cheated to get it.

He applied a chilling effect on other bidders, by creating troll accounts and spamming many niches with bizarre bids.  The predictable effect was for serious bidders to stop bidding because faced with a troll bidder, you could end up spending three or four times more for a niche than you should have.

We must logically conclude that Ethereum may well not have won the auction if he had not used this tactic. 

So the choice before us now is either we let him buy the niche, and congratulate him, and insodoing condone his tactics and invite them to continue ... or we refuse to reward the behavior, and treat the malicious actor like the threat to Narrative that he is...  He gamed the system.  The last thing you want to do is reward people for doing that, right?

@Garden Gnome Publications, yes, he's doing that on several niches, I know. And yes, he's succeeding in demotivating people, like me, that's why his action already had an effect. I'm not going to invest, with this scenario, and this is what he wants. I may be overly prudent, but I'm not alone.

I don't think it's a competitor. The guy was quiet until the appeal on his niche. Everything started there, immediately, as direct revenge to me and a few other users, first, then as a challenge to the platform itself. IMO, those people take advantage of the delays in the system response. Now the delay may be on purpose. Hope not in future.

@Malkazoid, I couldn't agree more.

David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Must disagree also. Some people are serious about inflicting damage, not about nurturing the community.

And as others said, he has basically been bidding on as many niches as he can, and also appealing all niches possible. Disrupting operations and pushing away real members.

He's at an advantage now of picking whatever he wants to actually buy, and leave all others to rest. And I've seen genuine users outbid him and probably end up paying very high price.

I'll post my suggestion in separate topic

Bashar Abdullah posted:
David Dreezer posted:

If the person does indeed pay 60k for the Niche I'd posit that they are serious.

Must disagree also. Some people are serious about inflicting damage, not about nurturing the community.

And as others said, he has basically been bidding on as many niches as he can, and also appealing all niches possible. Disrupting operations and pushing away real members.

He's at an advantage now of picking whatever he wants to actually buy, and leave all others to rest. And I've seen genuine users outbid him and probably end up paying very high price.

I'll post my suggestion in separate topic

Thank you @Bashar Abdullah - we have a duty to care for the people who have been impacted by this troll's vendetta.  People have potentially been caused considerable extra expense, and others have decided not to buy niches they wanted.  In the case of at least one person - I think he would have made an excellent niche owner: his dedication is already manifest... and I only mention him because he's the one I've talked with.  There may be others. 

He is sitting it out now - he'll miss the niche he was interested in.  He might purchase another niche if he gets the sense we're taking this problem seriously - that's why I was so concerned when a Team member suggested we should congratulate the troll if he purchases the niche that legitimate Narrator wanted to buy, or at least see a well-intentioned Narrator buy!  That's exactly how to send a signal we're not taking the troll's actions seriously, and people will draw conclusions from that.

Why bid against a phantom who doesn't care about the rep of his dummy account, so will happily push the price up ridiculously?  Some of the troll's bids were over 20 times the minimum bid.  

I get that Beta isn't meant to be perfect.  But the decision was made to launch it despite it lacking even rudimentary tools or strategies to deal with the type of bidding disruption we've experienced, so when that causes people to experience real losses, the least we can do is not suggest we congratulate the troll who caused the losses, and is actively trying to sabotage Narrative.  It really caught me by surprise to be honest... and I really hope it wasn't meant the way it came across.  How are people supposed to conclude Narrative is setting up a fair system if we're told to congratulate the trolls that game it at our expense?

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×