11 ms·

When is gaming actually cheating? Some people analyze when to submit posts for maximum likelihood of making the front page. Is that a bad thing if it pushes ano

When is gaming actually cheating? Some people analyze when to submit posts for maximum likelihood of making the front page. Is that a bad thing if it pushes another worthy post out of contention for eyeballs? I sometimes write a blog post, but instead of submitting it myself, I check the new queue waiting for someone else to submit it, then I pounce with an upvote, giving it a second vote in a short period of time. Is that gaming the system? Is that pushing another worthy submission down that really deserved a better chance?

larrys 14y ago
"When is gaming actually cheating?" Honesty, cheating etc. is defined in relation to what one's behavior is that is making the judgement. Someone who crosses a line that you wouldn't cross is viewed as a cheat. Someone who doesn't even do something that you would do is viewed as being "honest". (Religion also works this way you tend to view people in terms of what you yourself do.) Nothing that you are doing to me appears to be cheating. "then I pounce with an upvote, giving it a second vote" One of the things I've noticed is that the posting of the same link someone else has posted will also increase by 1 vote. So if you post your own link and then someone sees it (not by way of HN) and hits "submit" and it's been posted it will increase by 1 vote. I've see several things that I've submitted go up in value because others see them after and submit the same link (and there is no discussion and it didn't make page 1 or 2.)
mbesto 14y ago
Let's start by defining cheating: "Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal." Is it possible to cheat a system that has no rules? (remember, there are only guidelines here, there's a difference). I don't know how to assess the morality of HN, but clearly the goals of the general populous of HN has shifted. The community was started by a group of people looking to share information with each other, not promote their companies (although clearly that has been an indirect benefit). Point is - who cares if it's immoral, or if it's gaming, or if it's cheating, it detriments the original intent of the community. I want the motivation of scoring to be a meritocracy. Within this meritocracy you are more than entitled to your own upvote.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism Human opportunism should not be confused with "seeking opportunities" as such, or "making use of opportunities when they arise". Opportunism refers rather to a specific way of responding to opportunities, which involves the element of self-interestedness plus disregard for relevant (ethical) principles, or for intended or previously agreed goals, or for the shared concerns of a group.[2] Somewhat confusingly, opportunism is sometimes also redefined by businessmen simply as the theory of discovering and pursuing opportunities.[3] These businessmen are motivated by their dislike for the idea that there could ever be anything wrong with capitalizing on opportunities. According to this redefinition, "opportunism" is a euphemism for "entrepreneurship". Although human opportunism often has a strong negative (pejorative) moral connotation (in contrast to e.g. biological opportunism, used as a neutral scientific description), it may also be defined more neutrally as putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest (though usually in a way that negates some principle previously followed). Opportunism is sometimes also defined as the ability to capitalize on the mistakes of others: to utilize opportunities created by the errors, weaknesses or distractions of opponents to one's own advantage.[4] In a war situation or crisis, this may be regarded as justifiable, but in a civilized situation it may be regarded as unprincipled ("taking unfair advantage of the situation"). Taking a realistic or practical approach to a problem can involve "weak" forms of opportunism. For the sake of doing something that will work, or that successfully solves the problem, a previously agreed principle is knowingly compromised or disregarded - with the justification that alternative actions would, overall, have a worse effect. Though it may be disapproved of, or criticized ("There ought to be a law against it..."), opportunist behaviour is not necessarily criminal, corrupt or illegal.
DanBC 14y ago
> then I pounce with an upvote, giving it a second vote in a short period of time. Is that gaming the system? One person, one account, one vote, and no co-ordinated voting by a group. Thus, no cheating. It's also noteworthy that someone else thought the content was good enough to post. Voting, logging into a different account, and voting again is obviously cheaty. Having ten different accounts to vote would obviously be cheaty. Having a facebook group who upvote articles submitted by their members is obviously cheaty. Paying for upvotes is obviously cheaty. It's a shame Atlantic decided to cheat. They had good content. Is that pushing another worthy submission down that really deserved a better chance? HN POWER USERS read the [new] tab, and not the front page, so it doesn't really make much difference. There are a few people that I have bookmarked and I check their submissions once a week or so to see if there's anything interesting there. Admittedly this is sub-optimal.
tibbon 14y ago
Its a good point. What is cheating? If I have a Twitter following for 50K people, or 5,000 friends on Facebook and something of mine gets put on here, and then I share it on my networks too... its almost 100% certain to hit front page then and stay at the top for a bit. Is that cheating? I don't know.
nsns 14y ago
>When is gaming actually cheating? Simple: once most participants aren't aware of it, once their lack of awareness is (ab)used by a small group of players, it becomes cheating. However, this isn't a "game", but simply some users pretending to express their opinion (by upvoting), while actually paying back favors, in exchange for future ones, thus corrupting the system.

larrys 14y ago

"When is gaming actually cheating?" Honesty, cheating etc. is defined in relation to what one's behavior is that is making the judgement. Someone who crosses a line that you wouldn't cross is viewed as a cheat. Someone who doesn't even do something that you would do is viewed as being "honest". (Religion also works this way you tend to view people in terms of what you yourself do.) Nothing that you are doing to me appears to be cheating. "then I pounce with an upvote, giving it a second vote" One of the things I've noticed is that the posting of the same link someone else has posted will also increase by 1 vote. So if you post your own link and then someone sees it (not by way of HN) and hits "submit" and it's been posted it will increase by 1 vote. I've see several things that I've submitted go up in value because others see them after and submit the same link (and there is no discussion and it didn't make page 1 or 2.)

mbesto 14y ago

Let's start by defining cheating: "Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal." Is it possible to cheat a system that has no rules? (remember, there are only guidelines here, there's a difference). I don't know how to assess the morality of HN, but clearly the goals of the general populous of HN has shifted. The community was started by a group of people looking to share information with each other, not promote their companies (although clearly that has been an indirect benefit). Point is - who cares if it's immoral, or if it's gaming, or if it's cheating, it detriments the original intent of the community. I want the motivation of scoring to be a meritocracy. Within this meritocracy you are more than entitled to your own upvote.

001sky 14y ago
Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism Human opportunism should not be confused with "seeking opportunities" as such, or "making use of opportunities when they arise". Opportunism refers rather to a specific way of responding to opportunities, which involves the element of self-interestedness plus disregard for relevant (ethical) principles, or for intended or previously agreed goals, or for the shared concerns of a group.[2] Somewhat confusingly, opportunism is sometimes also redefined by businessmen simply as the theory of discovering and pursuing opportunities.[3] These businessmen are motivated by their dislike for the idea that there could ever be anything wrong with capitalizing on opportunities. According to this redefinition, "opportunism" is a euphemism for "entrepreneurship". Although human opportunism often has a strong negative (pejorative) moral connotation (in contrast to e.g. biological opportunism, used as a neutral scientific description), it may also be defined more neutrally as putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest (though usually in a way that negates some principle previously followed). Opportunism is sometimes also defined as the ability to capitalize on the mistakes of others: to utilize opportunities created by the errors, weaknesses or distractions of opponents to one's own advantage.[4] In a war situation or crisis, this may be regarded as justifiable, but in a civilized situation it may be regarded as unprincipled ("taking unfair advantage of the situation"). Taking a realistic or practical approach to a problem can involve "weak" forms of opportunism. For the sake of doing something that will work, or that successfully solves the problem, a previously agreed principle is knowingly compromised or disregarded - with the justification that alternative actions would, overall, have a worse effect. Though it may be disapproved of, or criticized ("There ought to be a law against it..."), opportunist behaviour is not necessarily criminal, corrupt or illegal.

DanBC 14y ago

> then I pounce with an upvote, giving it a second vote in a short period of time. Is that gaming the system? One person, one account, one vote, and no co-ordinated voting by a group. Thus, no cheating. It's also noteworthy that someone else thought the content was good enough to post. Voting, logging into a different account, and voting again is obviously cheaty. Having ten different accounts to vote would obviously be cheaty. Having a facebook group who upvote articles submitted by their members is obviously cheaty. Paying for upvotes is obviously cheaty. It's a shame Atlantic decided to cheat. They had good content. Is that pushing another worthy submission down that really deserved a better chance? HN POWER USERS read the [new] tab, and not the front page, so it doesn't really make much difference. There are a few people that I have bookmarked and I check their submissions once a week or so to see if there's anything interesting there. Admittedly this is sub-optimal.

tibbon 14y ago

Its a good point. What is cheating? If I have a Twitter following for 50K people, or 5,000 friends on Facebook and something of mine gets put on here, and then I share it on my networks too... its almost 100% certain to hit front page then and stay at the top for a bit. Is that cheating? I don't know.

nsns 14y ago

>When is gaming actually cheating? Simple: once most participants aren't aware of it, once their lack of awareness is (ab)used by a small group of players, it becomes cheating. However, this isn't a "game", but simply some users pretending to express their opinion (by upvoting), while actually paying back favors, in exchange for future ones, thus corrupting the system.