in reply to Re^3: History now influences voting (wrath)
in thread History now influences voting

The rules are "politically correct" because they purport to "protect" the tender feelings of posters who consistently post bad nodes at the expense of the "mean" voters who vote their nodes down.

Actualy downvoting all nodes of a single author because of the author instead of the post reduces the utility of the reputation of a node. So I see this as trying to protect nodes from their own authors. If you realy think all the nodes are bad then still down vote them all, after all, all you loose is some XP.

I say "holier than thou" meaning that you, tye, have decided and decreed it be so. "Suck it up." There may have been discussion, but I have not seen it. It seems as arbitrary and capricious as the whole "redefine the levels" bit, not too long ago.

Many discussions on site policy happen away from everyday users, this isn't a democracy after all.

If I vote down a series of nodes by the same bad author; why should I have to agree to take a hit on XP myself? I don't understand the logic. If they are "votes" they should be able to be exercised without repercussion or identification. If there is reward or punishment attached to how they are used, they cease to be votes and become something else.

They already have a reward, so a punishment only balances it out and this argument doesn't make much since to me. The only punshiment is for behaviours that are seen to dilute the use of the votes in the first place, i.e. voting based on personal feelings towards and author instead of based on the content of nodes.

If down-voting nodes is such an ineffective way of communicating that nodes were bad, then why have it at all? Maybe you should only allow up-votes? Or take it even further, you should decide on each node that you like, and give it the grade you feel it deserves; and then inform all of us trolls and unwashed masses what we should think of it.

No one ever said "don't down vote", or even "don't use all your votes to downvote", rather they seem to be saying "don't down vote all of a single users posts just because you hate that user". This to me protects the very thing you say it hurts. It makes it so that hopefully a nodes rep closer reflects the communities opinion of the node, not the author.

Eric Hodges
  • Comment on Re^4: History now influences voting (wrath)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: History now influences voting (wrath)
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 21, 2007 at 15:54 UTC
    i.e. voting based on personal feelings towards and author instead of based on the content of nodes.
    A computer can't tell the difference.

      That would be why humans have to create the rules to identify that behavior. Are the rules ever going to be perfect? Almost definitly not. However I do find it amusing that at least one person used an anon account in order to avoid this very behavior while arguing that the behavior should be allowed.

      Eric Hodges
        anon cannot vote silly