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 haukex (Archbishop)
on Jun 09, 2022 at 13:54 UTC ( #11144561=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

I strongly agree with points 2 and 3*, but I strongly disagree with point 1 as written, because it is much too vauge and leaves too many questions open. For example, knowing the history of Worst Nodes, if you were to implement this policy retroactively, you'd have to revoke the voting privileges of a significant number of users.

* Point 3 could perhaps be more simply worded as "voting on your own nodes, for example through a second account" (similar to what is explained Site Rules Governing User Accounts).

  • 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 14:04 UTC

    Good points, thank you. It would certainly not be my intent to revoke the voting privileges of a user for something they did a long time ago — say, more than a month ago.

    Can you suggest alternative wording for #1?

    I think your concern about #3 is null, since there's no way to vote on your own nodes from the same account.

      Don't know if it's perfect but I think the phrasing you'd used downthread "Downvoting all of a user's nodes with prejudice" would read as clearer / less vague than just "Massive downvoting" (and then giving e.g. "Exclusively downvoting a given user across multiple days" as an explicit example of "with prejudice"). Then again I might could see just "Massive downvoting" so long as there were a couple of clear, tangible examples provided afterwards as to what's considered such an abuse.

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

      I will think about how #1 could be worded better, but I also think it might suffer from overcomplexity if one tried to cover every case. Plus, I have a dim memory of reading of a existing policy that already states basically the same thing as #1, but I'm having trouble finding it right now.

      For #3, I meant what is described in that Site Rules link, plus for example posting something anonymously, then logging in and upvoting it.

        Thanks. Note that "nodes you (the human) wrote" says nothing about user accounts. If you upvote nodes you wrote — however you manage to do so — that is contrary to the spirit of PerlMonks. Imagine if, for example, sundial started posting anonymously and then using his account to upvote each of those, to try to offset the negativity they'd inevitably attract, that would be an abuse. Again, we're just looking for large-scale, systematic abuses. One or two here and there is not something we'd be concerned about.

      > I think your concern about #3 is null, since there's no way to vote on your own nodes from the same account.

      well ... there is an edge case! :)

      I'll rather send you a /msg ...

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11144561]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2022-11-29 20:37 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?