-16

I see that there are strategies that pass the reputation-restore filtering. For instance, my

enter image description here

reputation was not restored.

Now, during last day I got more downvotes for various posts

enter image description here

Though they are more diffused in time, I think that it is extraordinary to receive even two downvotes per day for old posts, since are they are of interest to nobody. I have got 8.

Is it just a new strategy conspired by good users to push undesired users away from the site? I feel that this is a punishment for refusing to buy the empty talks as arguments, as I did recently here and here. Silly people just come up with stupid arguments that they cannot defend in the comments and therefore resort to punish the victims by silently bastardizing their activity elsewhere. Select * from votes at http://data.stackexchange.com hides the punisher IDs.

The problem is not that I am downvoted but I am downvoted without reason. Should I care about that? I am waiting (the people who behave like that) to massively downvote this question.

  • 3
    What makes you assume it is one and the same person? And as the serial-voting post says, you can always ask a moderator for clarification in a chat channel or flag a post to have this investigated, if the serial-downvote script did not catch it. – Martijn Pieters Nov 28 '13 at 11:05
  • 5
    Be advised that this post reads a bit like a rant, and may attract downvotes. (Not from me. I'm just providing a friendly warning about what often happens here.) – michaelb958--GoFundMonica Nov 28 '13 at 11:05
  • @MartijnPieters what makes you think that I think that it is one and the same person? – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:07
  • 18
    What makes you think that Martijn thinks that you think that ... wait .... what makes me think ... no you .... nevermind. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 11:09
  • @Val: you are implying that the downvote behaviour is improper and that the serial voting script didn't catch this. There is an automatic serial-vote reversal script that'll take care of improper voting, and I thought you were aware of that already. If the script doesn't catch this behaviour, it is usually not improper voting behaviour (different people downvoting questions for normal reasons). Rarely it can be someone with sock-puppet accounts evading the script. – Martijn Pieters Nov 28 '13 at 11:10
  • 4
    By the way, you seem to imply that your downvotes for September 22nd weren't restored? They were the day after. If that's not what you meant to say, please update your post here. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 11:11
  • @michaelb958 I do not understand the problem with rants. People look for resolution in public forums when they have a problem. They complain, they say what they do not like. This is all ranting. Asking people not to rant is the same to ask the not to ask the questions. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:11
  • @Val: What, you think there is no constructive way to say this? You could have left out the conspiracy theory here, for starters. – Martijn Pieters Nov 28 '13 at 11:12
  • 5
    @Val Well, at the very least rants like this one are not going to lead to positive attention. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 11:12
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters The downvotes are on older posts, that itself makes it rather suspicious. – Mad Scientist Nov 28 '13 at 11:13
  • 1
    @MadScientist: I agree the voting pattern does has me thinking. But with only 2 or 3 clustered downvotes, I do think this is separate people. With the general tone of this post it could be the OP aggravated multiple people elsewhere. – Martijn Pieters Nov 28 '13 at 11:15
  • 1
    @Val: in any case, the serial voting script applies to multiple votes from one person, not multiple people downvoting your posts. – Martijn Pieters Nov 28 '13 at 11:16
  • 4
    -1 for lying about "not reversed" – John Dvorak Nov 28 '13 at 11:16
  • 1
    @Bart sorry, I had no idea that recovery is done by separate transactions. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:19
  • 1
    @JanDvorak "Lying" means that liar has an intent to deceive. I had no such intent. I was not aware that reversing leaves downvotes intact. I wounder how people who teach me the tactful behaviour and good manners start by implying my bad intent. Ok, I should behave very bad because I do not do the same. I do not call people liars unless they insist on something wrong. Keep downvoting. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:57
11

The automatic reversal of serial voting by the daily script is only the first line of defense. In cases where you suspect that a user is targeting you specifically with votes and is trying to evade the script, just flag one of your posts for moderator attention and explain the issue, or use the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page.

A moderator or SE employee can then investigate the situation in detail and remove the votes and/or suspend the user.

| improve this answer | |
10

Serial downvoting is never appropriate. If that happens to you and doesn't get reversed, as Mad Scientist says, you can contact a moderator via a flag, or contact the team and let them have a look.

But going through your comment history in particular, I can't help noticing a thing or two. A significant number of your comments seem to be on the abrasive side at the very least. Stack Overflow isn't a battlefield. But if you treat it like one, people will pay attention. And that attention might not always be positive.

So besides the serial downvoter getting punished (if there really is one), you might want to reconsider your own attitude. And if certain things get you frustrated, try to respond in a polite and constructive manner. And if you can't, perhaps simply don't respond.

| improve this answer | |
  • It is not battlefiled but it does not mean that I should accept everything as answer and close my eyes on the nonsense in the other answers. How can you ensure quality if you deny drawing attention to errors? – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:23
  • 3
    Pointing out errors or flaws to an "audience" that is willing to listen is of course no problem. But telling them to literally "shut up" is not going to do you any favours. You don't have to be quiet, you just have to remain polite. And if I find that they are no willing to listen, I usually decide I have better things to do with my time. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 11:24
  • I am asking the person who has confirmed that he had no point in his "argument" to clean up the filed (so that we could better see the real point made by others). – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:26
  • 2
    @Val there is more than one way to respond to nonsense. Exhibit 1: "Who said jQuery was available? Also, don't use document.write. Also, the question is about foo, not bar". Exhibit 2: "My eyes ar bl33ding from that code! Delete it nao! And die a horrible death after you do." – John Dvorak Nov 28 '13 at 11:27
  • @Val there are ways to disagree and not be combative. Whether or not your position is correct, when you become aggressive in replies, the chances of encountering serial downvoters increases significantly. Would you take that tone if it was a colleague sitting across the table from you? – psubsee2003 Nov 28 '13 at 11:31
  • @psubsee2003 "Shut up" has appeared after I was downvoted. Everything else I would say openly into the face. I have no shame for correcting people. What I really feel shame of is that opening people's eyes is considered offensive and deserves a punishment in our society. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 11:51
  • @Val There is a difference between having no shame in correcting people and being openly aggressive and confrontational. The latter may carry consequences as it will annoy others. – Flyk Nov 28 '13 at 16:09
  • @Flyk What do you mean being agressive? I feel that people perceive any my disagreement as "confrontational". But, if I see a problem I tell it directly. I come here for the information and sharing ideas, not to be nice. If you express any ideas here, you should be ready to defend them. You do not have problems if you position is solid and appropriate. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 16:53
  • 1
    "I come here for the information and sharing ideas, not to be nice." ... those two are not mutually exclusive. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 16:57
  • @Bart Being neutral and concrete should be treated as "aggressive". Actually, I "attack" the people with no arguments, asking for some. The only aggression is coming up (and downvoting) with no point. – Val Nov 28 '13 at 17:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .