Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

by marto (Cardinal)
on Jun 09, 2022 at 13:45 UTC ( #11144558=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

Points 2 and 3 I have no problem with. Point 1 I would query. Suppose I was a user who continually, despite being corrected or called out, posted garbage again and again for years. If people keep downvoting my posts, could they be punished?

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by jdporter (Chancellor) on Jun 09, 2022 at 13:57 UTC

    Clearly there have been users whose posts have been overwhelmingly bad. Downvoting a bad post when it's posted isn't a problem. The problem we've seen is when someone decides to carpet-bomb all of a user's past posts, indiscriminately, in order to make some kind of "statement" against that user. Please read reference 1: History now influences voting. I should note that tye's changes to address the problem don't work 100%, as we still get users who mass-downvote another user, deciding to just suck up the negative consequences from tye's changes. tye also said "administrative intervention sucks" but I have no problem manually intervening to address the corner cases.

Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by soonix (Canon) on Jun 09, 2022 at 13:52 UTC
    "massive" downvoting, I presume, would be if I find all the nodes from a particular user, and use up more or less all my votes to downvote these.

      If all my posts are garbage that could be considered dangerous or detrimental to ones sanity/task/career, wouldn't each merit a legitimate downvote? Surely it's my fault that they all suck?

        Downvote them as they happen, if they're bad. Don't decide "I need to go back and downvote all of tye's nodes because they're all bad and I'd be doing a service to posterity."

Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 09, 2022 at 14:58 UTC
    IIRC was sundial corrected and warned over and over again about the bad quality of his posts.

    Massive downvoting started afterwards and was done openly and often with explanation.

      Indeed, and rather than quality of contribution improve things got worse.

        Indeed, and rather than quality of contribution improve things got worse.

        and voting made us feel better

Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 09, 2022 at 13:53 UTC
    IMHO the OP means voting by sympathy, you mean voting by quality. Of course there are overlaps.

    Certainly this could be better worded.

    Anyway I don't think this case is about sundial.

Re^2: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system (stop changing policy)
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 09, 2022 at 18:30 UTC
    Is this an actual change to policy? Dog votes were a shit move, but thats as far as "down voting" penalties should go
      Is this an actual change to policy?

      No. I'm merely codifying existing ad hoc policy. See the references I linked. There have been a few cases in the past, including one where a user was locked out for a while for voting abuse, and another had his voting privileges suspended for two years.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11144558]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (5)
As of 2022-11-29 21:52 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?