http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=11144571


in reply to Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
in thread RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

An abuse which he also says in said post should be allowed as a mechanism to vent (albeit with the implemented negative consequences). Again, what's now changed that this formerly allowed venting mechanism is no longer to be allowed?

Slightly advocatus diaboli here, but how do you know any given chunk of downvoting is indiscriminate? How do you know they don't think that the nodes in question truly don't merit the downvote? There's the existing penalties for such behavior and they're still willing to plink things doesn't that mean that they truly think they're worthy of the reputational plink? I'm sure there's not a time or seven that in the past I've gone and looked at a poster's past output and found real junk in there that I've then --'d because it's worthy of it (with the full knowledge what that's doing to my fake internet points).

An obvious automated plinking of everything from a singular poster done in one swell foop? Yes, that I could see sanctioning. But beyond that it feels like attempting to mind read and assign intent that you can't ensure is there.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

  • Comment on Re^3: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 09, 2022 at 14:28 UTC

    "Venting" is far too mild a word. It's an abuse of the voting system, and we all know it.

    how do you know any given chunk of downvoting is indiscriminate?

    When a user casts all, or nearly all, of their votes for the day, for days on end, merely downvoting old nodes of one particular user, that's not doing one's moderatorily duty, that's abusive. No one says: "Hm, I discovered this one post by Jo Blo which is pretty bad, I'll downvote it; now I'll spend a few hours checking to see if anything else he's posted also merits a downvote." No, rather, they say: "Jo Blo is a blight on the Monastery and my only power is to downvote all his nodes." And that's what we want to discourage.

[reply]

      OK, that's what I was trying to discern; "downvoting for days on end" is a reasonable qualifier for abusive. With that as an explicit qualifier (descript(ion|or)? explanation?) for what's "massive downvoting" then I'd be much more comfortable with point one.

      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.

[reply]

        Thank you.

        Also, people should be aware that we can see the exact time that each vote is cast. We can tell when a user spent mere seconds, or even less, between votes. :-)

[reply]

        downvoting for days on end" is a reasonable qualifier for abusive

        no, all that means is you like reading poor quality nodes - whats next you're gonna ban reading bad books?

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion