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

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?

  • 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 14:10 UTC

    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."

[reply]

      Agreed. As always thanks for your input.

[reply]

      If one doesn't see a terrible node as it happens one is now no longer allowed to express an opinion through voting as to the node's quality?

      Then why allow voting on "non-contemporary" (for whatever timeframe is "contemporary") nodes at all? Disable voting on nodes after however long giving a statute of limitations on negative node rep.

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

[reply]
        If one doesn't see a terrible node as it happens

        Downvoting a terrible node is perfectly acceptable. Downvoting 30 historical nodes by the same author in one fell swoop incurs a penalty (as proposed) and I'm fine with that.

        🦛

[reply]
          A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

        soonix put it rather well:

        "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.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion