Relevant: The Only Social Network Built On Trust

0

1.2K

...

A general understanding I had when I joined Relevant newly and even up until recently is 'it doesn't really matter if a person has more than one account' - this was formed from responses like 'even if a person has more than one account, there is a little he can do with them because using those accounts to upvote one another will only distribute the same amount of REP among them and only means sharing what belongs to one for many' which I see constantly from admins whenever someone raises a complaint regarding that. Then I read [@slava](/user/profile/slava) 's comment on a thread some days ago and I feel like that has changed. He wrote "Instead, I would focus on building trust with admins. A great place to start is to only use a single account. It will soon be possible for anyone to see all accounts associated with a single user which will be a deciding factor on whether admins will upvote a given user." Now here is my concern; what will be the yardstick to determine that particular accounts belong to a single person, thereby blacklisting them? What is the definition of 'accounts associated with a single user'? From what I know, IP address matching is the popular (as a matter of fact, the only that I know) means of verifying such identity. Now if that is what's being employed here, will that place every husband and wife's account that has at one time or the other used each others Wi-Fi or tethered data in the blacklist? When it wasn't a big deal before, one could have done such for diverse reasons. Let's not forget that funding a Relevant Account as well as making withdrawals from it, which is by connecting metamask, can only be done on PC - This could have brought up a need to log in more than one account on a single PC/IP. There are of course many partners/households who have just a single PC. I am not sure if I have been able to bear my mind clearly enough on this, but I really do hope someone (especially admins) will understand and be able to shed more light on it. [@DrEllisJaruzel](/user/profile/DrEllisJaruzel) [@taylore](/user/profile/taylore) [@Druss](/user/profile/Druss) [@AlexCPoon](/user/profile/AlexCPoon)

Reply

Share

0

1.2K

christlik

0 @joefun90 • 3 Years Ago

6 Comments

#question

#support

...

A general understanding I had when I joined Relevant newly and even up until recently is 'it doesn't really matter if a person has more than one account' - this was formed from responses like 'even if a person has more than one account, there is a little he can do with them because using those accounts to upvote one another will only distribute the same amount of REP among them and only means sharing what belongs to one for many' which I see constantly from admins whenever someone raises a complaint regarding that. Then I read [@slava](/user/profile/slava) 's comment on a thread some days ago and I feel like that has changed. He wrote "Instead, I would focus on building trust with admins. A great place to start is to only use a single account. It will soon be possible for anyone to see all accounts associated with a single user which will be a deciding factor on whether admins will upvote a given user." Now here is my concern; what will be the yardstick to determine that particular accounts belong to a single person, thereby blacklisting them? What is the definition of 'accounts associated with a single user'? From what I know, IP address matching is the popular (as a matter of fact, the only that I know) means of verifying such identity. Now if that is what's being employed here, will that place every husband and wife's account that has at one time or the other used each others Wi-Fi or tethered data in the blacklist? When it wasn't a big deal before, one could have done such for diverse reasons. Let's not forget that funding a Relevant Account as well as making withdrawals from it, which is by connecting metamask, can only be done on PC - This could have brought up a need to log in more than one account on a single PC/IP. There are of course many partners/households who have just a single PC. I am not sure if I have been able to bear my mind clearly enough on this, but I really do hope someone (especially admins) will understand and be able to shed more light on it. [@DrEllisJaruzel](/user/profile/DrEllisJaruzel) [@taylore](/user/profile/taylore) [@Druss](/user/profile/Druss) [@AlexCPoon](/user/profile/AlexCPoon)

...

I'm not sure on how this is going to be rolled out tbh, but I'm guessing it will involve people being able to see the flow of reputation between accounts and not IP addresses. I wouldn't worry too much about it, but I agree people are better off just using one account and building trust with this as opposed to multiple accounts where it's harder to build trust.

0

...

I'm not sure on how this is going to be rolled out tbh, but I'm guessing it will involve people being able to see the flow of reputation between accounts and not IP addresses. I wouldn't worry too much about it, but I agree people are better off just using one account and building trust with this as opposed to multiple accounts where it's harder to build trust.

0

Reply

Share

christlik

@joefun90 • 3 Years Ago

...

Thank you for sharing your view on this. Your 'Reputation flow' line of thought makes sense to me, after all Reputation is at the heart of Relevant platform as a whole. I must say that I totally agree that people are better off with one account too, but I'm concerned about what community members know of the 'penalty' attached rather than having a feel that it doesn't necessarily mean. I can't locate the thread again, but I know I read somewhere sometimes when multiple accounts was 'cunningly' suggested as a means to game the 1000REL withdrawal limit - things people do out of impatience. If it's stated as being against the community's rule, such suggestion will not hold ground. I was wondering what would be of a person operating multiple accounts, if he has the money to fund those accounts with substantial amount, even without making a post of his own or accumulating Rep, if he can manage to stake good amount on admin's posts in the early minutes/hours of those posts, he'll still be carting away with good profits.

0

Reply

Share

christlik

@joefun90 • 3 Years Ago

...

Thank you for sharing your view on this. Your 'Reputation flow' line of thought makes sense to me, after all Reputation is at the heart of Relevant platform as a whole. I must say that I totally agree that people are better off with one account too, but I'm concerned about what community members know of the 'penalty' attached rather than having a feel that it doesn't necessarily mean. I can't locate the thread again, but I know I read somewhere sometimes when multiple accounts was 'cunningly' suggested as a means to game the 1000REL withdrawal limit - things people do out of impatience. If it's stated as being against the community's rule, such suggestion will not hold ground. I was wondering what would be of a person operating multiple accounts, if he has the money to fund those accounts with substantial amount, even without making a post of his own or accumulating Rep, if he can manage to stake good amount on admin's posts in the early minutes/hours of those posts, he'll still be carting away with good profits.

0

...

There wont be any hard rules or blacklists. Its more of a means for admins and other users to gauge trust and act at their own discretion. A few shared IPs are normal. But if a users is creating multiple accounts to try to earn reputation on each of them and manipulate payouts, it will be easy for admins to detect and prevent.

0

...

There wont be any hard rules or blacklists. Its more of a means for admins and other users to gauge trust and act at their own discretion. A few shared IPs are normal. But if a users is creating multiple accounts to try to earn reputation on each of them and manipulate payouts, it will be easy for admins to detect and prevent.