Timeline for Voting Irregularities: status of Bounties involved in such scenarios
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2012 at 11:07 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | @Als I don't have any strong feelings either way about this case. That's my opinion though. Other users (like you), moderators, or developers may disagree, and it's fine to bring the discussion up (like you did), as I said in point 3. There just isn't a "policy" that defines to-be-taken steps. | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 10:50 | comment | added | Alok Save | @balpha: The point of my contention is, If the particular user was barred and banned for voting irregularites on the basis of this specific instance then showing the Bounty awarded to the particular answer is unfair.True, someone who sees this Q & answer won't know the dynamics behind it & to them nothing would seem amiss, but to me it seems rather unethical.Ideally, the Bounty should be just removed discarded from the awarding user & not awarded(or shown awarded) to the bogus user.Ofcourse,If the users were banned for anything other than this instance my argument does not apply. | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 10:41 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | @Als No, your example is fine, I'm not discarding that. However, I still don't really know what you're asking -- you still say "what is the SO policy in this specific case", which entirely misses my point about "policies". If you want to know "why was the other user deleted instead of merged", I don't know, since I didn't do that. Either way has its pros and cons. Merging would show the answer as self-accepted, but would give the user the bounty amount back. Deleting hides the self-acceptance fact, but at least the user doesn't get their rep back. Since it's a good answer, I'm fine either way. | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 10:32 | comment | added | Alok Save | Awaiting your comments, now that I have cited the example, the argument of Imaginative scenarios doesn't hold good anymore. Unless, You discard the cited example as an invalid coincidence & figment of my imagination, I would want to know what is the SO policy in this specific case? | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 7:30 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Answer worth citing on many other future questions - too bad I can't favorite an answer! | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 7:13 | comment | added | Alok Save | Done.[Space Filler!] | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 7:05 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | If you indeed have an example, then link to it! Say "I think X happened here, what can be/should be/has been done", not "Hypothetically suppose X happens, what is the policy?" | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 7:03 | comment | added | Alok Save | To answer the last para of your Q more explicitly.No I am not making this scenario up,I have much better things to do than indulge in doing so.But I do think/suspect of encountering such a scneario & the actions I mention in the Questions are the visible observable behavior I see in this case.Though I can never be sure of whether my suspicison is correct & So I have no choice but to ask it as an hypothetical question.Does it make more sense? | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 6:53 | comment | added | Alok Save | When (if!) something happens, given that I am not a moderator how can I be sure that it indeed happened?,I can only doubt/speculate and ask what is the policy in such a scenario.And that is what I am doing in this case.I do not disagree with your answer, but I am afraid it does not answer my Question.As you pointed out,there are no well defined rules for all situations but they will(rather have to) evolve eventually(as and when needed).Well, if there is no rule in this case then let it evolve now. | |
| Mar 28, 2012 at 6:50 | history | answered | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |