Re^4: History now influences voting (reaps)

Well, for a spam to be reaped, it needs to have a reputation < 0, so somebody needs to downvote it. I usually downvote a node before voting "reap". -5 for an accidental duplicate costs just enough XP (likely 1 or 2) to make one slightly more careful next time. :)

- tye

Comment on Re^4: History now influences voting (reaps)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: History now influences voting (judgement) by ww (Archbishop) on Nov 19, 2007 at 02:14 UTC
(colors darkly!) I guess I misunderstood the requirement for - - votes as a guideline whose applicability was subject to a janitor's discretion. Still, that raises a question, in my feeble brain: NTC says: `Janitors only honor a consideration when it is consistent with site policy and doesn't conflict with their own judgement, regardless of how many 'edit' votes it has. When the appropriateness of a consideration is less clear, patience is preferred over haste.` ...which led this non-janitor to believe janitors have some discretion about the rule you cite. And if I misunderstood the rule, does that not mean the (potential) loss of XP for an actual service is -- in your earlier (and well-considered) phrase, "`noise that should be avoided`?"	[reply]
Re^6: History now influences voting (reaps) by tye (Sage) on Nov 19, 2007 at 02:23 UTC
janitors can't reap (they can vote for or against reaping just like anybody else of sufficient level). So, no, their judgement doesn't have any special impact on the rules that control when a node is reaped. For reaping, the judgement comes into play when gods decide whether to unreap nodes that got reaped against site policy. - tye	[reply]


more useful options
	PerlMonks