Timeline for "Voting fraud reversed" implies that the user did wrong, even though they didn't
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Mar 8, 2012 at 19:39 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | It now reads "Serial upvoting reversed". That still doesn't make it clear that egreg did nothing wrong. And there's still a wacking great red line where there shouldn't be. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 18:17 | comment | added | egreg | Brent's question was born from a chat conversation on TeX.StackExchange which originated from my remark that having so prominent a -4150 in rep was not very nice, particularly for the "voting fraud" wording. I know what it is about (it happened some months ago, actually), but my perception is that such a wording might be misleading for the unexperienced user that happens to look at rep pages. I don't like very much having such a big figure in my rep page, but can live with it. :) The new wording seems quite better. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 14:19 | comment | added | Brent.Longborough | The reason I asked "what does it mean" in the SX sense was in order to try and provide an alternate wording that wouldn't be misleading. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 14:19 | comment | added | Brent.Longborough | @Bobby: I'm sorry, I didn't want to get into a meta-argument; let me try to explain. First, I didn't know what constituted "vote fraud"; second I wasn't offended by it per se - after all, I've been to Florida --, but I was offended that it appeared to be attached to the name of a good friend who I know wouldn't do that. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:53 | history | edited | Nick CraverMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:27 | comment | added | Verbeia | @awoodland has a good suggestion for an alternative description. I'd refine it to "Reversed serial upvotes by other users". No intimation that the user that lost the rep had anything to do with creating the serial upvoting. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:21 | comment | added | Time Traveling Bobby | @Madmartigan: Maybe I have a too much "well, let's see first what's going on" and passive attitude. Just because somebody got rep removed doesn't necessary mean that the user was involved into that, though it does imply that, yes. But there are other possibilities, too. And until that I know what it was I assume nothing, but go with "whatever". Also, I don't think "randomly" fits in these cases. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:18 | comment | added | user159834 | @Bobby: How can you not understand that someone could be offended by being randomly accused of involvement in "vote fraud"? | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:15 | comment | added | Time Traveling Bobby | @Madmartigan: I think that's just a summary. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:15 | comment | added | Time Traveling Bobby | @Brent.Longborough: So, I guess you're one of the people who find the name "Braunf_ck" offensive, too? And yes, I just bowed to that **** ******* obfuscation of real names. On a mere side note, I do not find that term "Vote fraud" offensive at all, though, that would be a discussion about personal preferences, I fear. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:14 | comment | added | Frédéric Hamidi |
@YiJiang'sProble_, would Reversed sustained serial voting alleviate the ambiguity?
|
|
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:11 | comment | added | user159834 | @Bobby: He was offended by what he thought it meant (which is very unclear). Aside: How the hell can that much rep be involved in "vote fraud" in one day? | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:10 | comment | added | Brent.Longborough | @Bobby: Think about it for two minutes. I know what "Voting Fraud" means in English. That doesn't mean I have to know what it means in asp.net or any other StackExchangeSpeak. And in English, I find it offensive. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:08 | comment | added | Time Traveling Bobby | @Brent.Longborough: Wait...you came in here complaining that something is offensive and you don't even know what it actually means? | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:08 | history | edited | Yi Jiang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:06 | comment | added | Pekka | @awoodland's suggestion is perfect IMO. | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:06 | comment | added | Yi Jiang | @awoodland The problem with both of this is that the subject is missing, so somebody might assume the subject is the user whom the history belongs to | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:05 | comment | added | Brent.Longborough | Nick, thank you. Where can I find out what "Voting fraud" actually means? | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:03 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | would "serial upvoting reversed" avoid implying a value judgement? | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 11:02 | comment | added | AakashM | If I received 4360 rep that I shouldn't have, I wouldn't really feel like a 'target' :) | |
| Mar 2, 2012 at 10:54 | history | answered | Nick CraverMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |