in reply to Re^4: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
in thread RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

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.

  • Comment on Re^5: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by hippo (Archbishop) on Jun 09, 2022 at 14:32 UTC
    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]
      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.

      As am I. Seeking out a specific user's posts just to downvote them is a targeted attack, and is not a normal case of coming across a node or two in the course of searching for something.

[reply]
        Seeking out a specific user's posts just to downvote them is a targeted attack, and is not a normal case of coming across a node or two in the course of searching for something.

        Thank you!

[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^6: RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 09, 2022 at 14:21 UTC

    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