Timeline for Shouldn't anonymous serial downvoters be banned from SO?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2011 at 14:13 | comment | added | sbi | @badp: Maybe. And maybe many who do this simply do not know that they can be caught and their damage reverted. I don't know. When this happened to me, the guy obviously didn't even bother to check whether his work had any lasting effect, doing it several days in a row, despite the fact that his "work" was reverted every night. Pointing out to him that what he does is not accepted, will be detected, is futile, and might get him banned might have stopped him repeating the same with others. However, from what I know the mod didn't even seem to contact the guy. So how could he know? | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 11:34 | comment | added | badp | @sbi However you word the message, it is going to actually read: "yo. you're doing this too fast. do this one more time and bad stuff's coming your way. cool down for a few hours before you continue your downvote rampage!", and not "do not downvote rampage!" | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 11:30 | comment | added | badp | @sbi The sign is shown to everybody and it has the effect of causing all people to slow down, which is the purpose of the speed trap to being with. It doesn't come out of the ground when another speedtrap 200 meters ahead notices you're going too fast | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 14:33 | comment | added | sbi | @Michael: I can see that this is confusing. My original question was "Shouldn't anonymous serial downvoters be banned from SO?" to which the mods said that they would have the power to decide that already. Here, now, I added an answer proposing to make sinners aware that they will be caught and the sins punished. This would only leave those who would ignore a stern warning, making it easier to weed them out. (I do not see, however, how such a warning helps the sinners - except for leading them back on the right way, of course, but you didn't seem to refer to that.) | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 14:23 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @sbi So is this idea separate from the question you posted? Your question is "this guy is intentionally and maliciously working around the vote fraud filters", and your answer is "we should help out users that are committing vote fraud without thinking about it" | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 14:14 | comment | added | sbi | @Michael: Speed cameras are announced with a sign in some places. The effect is that cars slow down at that patch even though the cameras are offline 75% of the time. My idea is the same: When people go on a revenge downvoting spree they usually will not think about whether what they are doing is right or wrong or whether they could be caught out. Being told that it hurts the community and therefore users doing this are actively hunted down by the system will often be enough to bring them to their senses. Note that no explanation is needed how they are hunted and how to slip through the net. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 13:47 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | I assume I just don't get it, since this has 30 upvotes, but I don't understand what this solves; the system already detects when you've downvoted a user too many times and deals with it. Adding a popup is like sticking a sign on the road that says "there's a speed trap coming up, so even though you've been breaking the law, you can slow down right now to get away with it" | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 20:57 | comment | added | sbi | @badp: That might just be me not being a native speaker, but wouldn't "caught" allow "being caught by the user suffering having flagged the downvotes"? If not, please substitute some other phrase for this, I'm quite sure there's one that would include this possibility. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 20:24 | comment | added | badp | I quote your post: pop up a message explaining that revenge downvoting will be caught and offenders prosecuted. I'd add emphasis on "caught", but it turns out you already used all available emphasis yourself. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 16:09 | comment | added | sbi | @badp: Didn't I just explain why a warning message not necessarily implies a hint that an automatic system exists? | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 16:05 | comment | added | badp | @sbi A warning message is a hint that such a system exists in the first place... As it is, the system fools you in thinking you can downvote the same person as much as you want and the limit's your normal daily vote limit. Then poof go the downvotes. I don't even know if the reputation spent downvoting is even given back... | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 14:15 | comment | added | sbi | @badp: (It wasn't me, BTW.) He has a clue about the algorithm. Note that I said "No hint at any mechanisms needed." To those who have never heard about the algo it's obvious that the user on the other end will notice and might flag. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 14:09 | comment | added | badp | @sbi That's because who's downvoting you has a clue. Most people don't and a warning message would help that tremendously. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:53 | comment | added | sbi | @Pekka: You can't just create a sock-puppet and start downvoting, because in order to downvote you first need to earn 125 rep. So your argument doesn't apply to the heedlessly enraged rampaging maniac you invoked before. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:44 | comment | added | Pekka | The message box may deter some from rage downvoting, but it will make sure that all the others create sock-puppet accounts for the occasion. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:43 | comment | added | sbi | @Pekka: If a simple message box might prevent 90% of all offenders (or even just 50%, if you disagree with the numbers) to ever run into offending, why would you not want to have the message, but rather enforce detention? That does not seem logical to me. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:40 | comment | added | sbi | @badp: You might want to re-read the question. We already have that. It was caught. It triggered this discussion. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:39 | comment | added | Pekka | @sbi I'm arguing for leaving everything as it is, but adding automatic flagging of revenge downvoting when the anti-vote-rigging script runs. When a user is caught by the system, have a mod suspend them for a short time; on subsequent offenses, for a longer time. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:38 | comment | added | sbi | @Pekka: What are you arguing for? When someone is so enraged that they aren't stopped by being told they are to be caught and will be prosecuted, then nothing will stop them. That's not an argument against holding up the message for the benefit of the 90% who will be stopped. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:32 | comment | added | user50049 | @Pekka Though, it would stop someone that isn't on a rage voting spree, which means more stronger 'automatic' measures wouldn't seem so problematic. But, as (badp) says .. we don't want people to become even more calculated when determined to misbehave. I don't know if a 'good' fix for this exists. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:32 | comment | added | badp | Actually it might trigger the revenge downvoter to wisen up and be more subtle about his revenge... "hey we've almost caught you! stop now!" "Oh, okay. See you tomorrow, sbi, see you tomorrow." | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | ChrisF Mod | @Pekka - it won't stop them all, but might make some people think about what they are doing | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 13:24 | comment | added | Pekka | A nice idea, but it won't stop somebody on a rage downvoting spree. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 11:13 | comment | added | Alok Save | +1 This should be possible to implement with least of efforts and doesn't even need any policy change which means no debate wherein most ideas here get lost in for against war of words. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 10:35 | history | answered | sbi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |